Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
kkeithle at redhat.com
Wed May 30 18:11:32 UTC 2012
On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> 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
Just to be clear, it's been extensively discussed on an epel list
@redhat. Sorry for for the omission.
As for the RHS Channel and RHSA, suffice it to say, it's not RHEL.
That's the key point.
There seems to be some small consensus that not shipping glusterfs-3.3.x
on f16 and f17 is the correct strategy, and I'm happy with that. And if
everyone else is happy with that then no rename is necessary.
More information about the devel