glusterfs rename

Richard W.M. Jones rjones at
Wed May 30 16:44:57 UTC 2012

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:46:46AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
> respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7),
> and the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
> I.e. what is currently glusterfs-3.2.6-2.{fc16,fc17,el6} would
> become glusterfs32-3.2.6-x.{fc16,fc17,el6}, etc. x would be what, 1?
> 2? Does it matter?
> And of course then respin HekaFS rpms with the dependency changed to
> the new name.
> This would serve two purposes: a) resolves the glusterfs in EPEL and
> RHS Channel debate, b) lets us ship glusterfs33 in f16, f17, and f18
> along with glusterfs32+HekaFS, since we don't (currently) plan to
> update HekaFS for glusterfs33. HekaFS features will be added to
> later releases of glusterfs33.
> Any hoops? Or can I just go ahead and do this?

This is done for unison:*

because different versions of unison use a different protocol, and
there is a user case where they want to talk to multiple remote
machines all using different protocols (and there isn't an easier way
of doing it without a massive rewrite upstream that no one has the
energy for).

We had to go through a full package review for each name.

To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it.  Does any
user really need to parallel install both versions of glusterfs?


Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows
programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd

More information about the devel mailing list