Keep or remove GlusterFS from EPEL-6?

[Kevin Fenzi]

So, I'm not going to answer all the (verbose) replies in this thread
point by point. ;) 

I looked up what exactly we agreed to for policy last year before
launching EPEL6, and it was: 

"EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors
under 6* directories with the following exception: If the binary rpm is
only shipped in some arches in RHEL, EPEL may ship a package as close
as possible to the RHEL version with a leading package Release of 0.
(ie, libfoo-1.2-0.x) (note that EPEL maintainer must keep up exactly
with the RHEL src.rpm where possible)."

Cite:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meetbot/teams/epel/epel.2011-01-03-20.30.html

So, under this current policy, glusterfs should sadly be removed from
EPEL. 

I'll note there's a few other packages in that channel that might also
cause some problems for other projects: 

python-greenlet and python-eventlet are used by openstack. 
pyxattr is used by rdiff-backup and also duplicity. 
hekafs uses glusterfs. 

RHUI and DirServ both have a number of conflicting packages too. 

I fear we are going to have to collect all the SRPMS and see what the
effects are here. I also note that the SAM channel has a old
puppet/facter version in it. 

Would anyone care to create a script to collect all these src.rpms and
compare against epel? 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/attachments/20120516/610de464/attachment.sig>