glusterfs rename

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at
Wed May 30 18:23:42 UTC 2012

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle at> wrote:
> 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
>> RHEL7.
> 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.

Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest a feature page
for F-18 / rawhide. Is it feasible for the missing hekafs features to
be merged into the 3.3 release train by October when F-18 is due to be

For the EPEL side possibly it might be worth going the glusterfs32
naming route and keep it simple and move it forward.


More information about the devel mailing list