Kenyon Ralph

> @kenyon can you resolve the test failures so we can get this merged? I'd like to, but like I mentioned in https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppetlabs-puppet_agent/pull/681#issuecomment-1852750322, I investigated and couldn't figure out why...

My guess is that something more fundamental is wrong with the tests, like there are tests executing on platforms that they shouldn't be executing on.

> Thanks for all of your work on this @kenyon , would it make sense to bump the puppetlabs-apt requirement in metadata.json since this is only supported in >= 9.2.0?...

@mhashizume I updated the versions in those helpers. The Dockerfiles don't specify versions (there are some branch specifications, but those lines are commented out).

@mhashizume I updated the metadata. Without looking at it myself, I'm not sure either what to do about that upgrade issue. I still have one PE 2019 instance that I...

@mhashizume I added a commit that bumps the Puppet version requirement to 7. I think this is the only safe way to go if the dependent modules require Puppet 7....

@mhashizume done. Not sure where the proper fix would go for that acceptance helper, maybe around here: https://github.com/puppetlabs/beaker-puppet/blob/1146cb9783f74812421ebd52dc556f68710c57fe/lib/beaker-puppet/install_utils/foss_utils.rb#L1091

Well I've run into a problem with this. I set up the puppet-tools apt source, which uses the same keyring as the pc_repo apt source that puppetlabs-puppet_agent sets up, here:...

Nevermind, that wouldn't work, of course you can't manage the same file path multiple times with puppet even if they have different resource titles. So I'm not sure what the...

Maybe puppetlabs-apt's apt::source type needs a way to specify the `signed-by` value without actually managing any file resources.