pbrobinson at gmail.com
Wed May 30 17:25:08 UTC 2012
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> 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?
> No, and in fact that would not work. (And it's not the problem we're trying
> to solve.)
> If glusterfs-3.2.x + HekaFS is installed, we essentially want to avoid ever
> updating to glusterfs-3.3.x because HekaFS is not compatible with it.
> One way I can solve this is to never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and f17
> (and EPEL el6).
That works as it's generally recognised that there shouldn't be major
version upgrades and breakages within a release especially one that
> I'd be perfectly happy saying we will never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and
> f17, but the reality is that there probably are people who want it.
So you can always do a fedorapeople repository for those that want to
> Along the same lines, I'd be happy saying we will not ship HekaFS in f18
> once glusterfs-3.3.x is out, but there are probably people who want
> glusterfs-3.2.x, with or without HekaFS.
Those people are then free to stick with Fedora 16, Fedora 17 or EL6.
> And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
> glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in
EPEL when it's already in RHEL? What's the difference?
More information about the devel