pbrobinson at gmail.com
Wed May 30 18:23:42 UTC 2012
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle at redhat.com> 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
> 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