Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
kkeithle at redhat.com
Wed May 30 17:34:33 UTC 2012
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> 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?
This has been beaten to death already. It's not in RHEL. It's in the RHS
Channel for RHSA. Some client-side bits will eventually be released in
And there are more users of EPEL than just RHEL.
And since it's already in EPEL, and has been for a couple of years, as
glusterfs I'd say the burden is on the RHEL packagers to pick a name
that doesn't conflict with what's in EPEL. Unless the name gets changed
More information about the devel