On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37 >> to rawhide[0]. >> >> I would like to solicit thoughts on pushing this to F16. >> While this fixes 5 bugs in Fedora's bug tracker (and to be fair, 2 of >> them are easily fixed in the current version) there are a number of >> bugs fixed in the 4 months since 0.31 was released. >> The downside - a number of binaries and libraries have changed name[1], >> Technically this probably runs afoul of the updates policy, but ceph >> appears to be a leaf package if repoquery is to be believed, and it's >> still on the same major version number :). It's also true that there >> isn't really the idea of a supported version of Ceph since it's still >> very rapidly in development and considered quite bleeding edge. >> >> Thoughts, comments, flames? > > What's the impact? Are there api/abi changes that would need updates > to packages that depend on ceph? > > Peter > The impact would be that folks would have different binary names, and of course a version change. The binary name change is really the only real issue that I see that makes it run afoul of the guidelines. (e.g. user experience is changed. Ceph appears to be a leaf package (if repoquery is to be believed.) _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
