On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> >> To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and >> unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any >> user really need to parallel install both versions of glusterfs? > > > No, and in fact that would not work. (And it's not the problem we're trying > to solve.) > > If glusterfs-3.2.x + HekaFS is installed, we essentially want to avoid ever > updating to glusterfs-3.3.x because HekaFS is not compatible with it. > > One way I can solve this is to never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and f17 > (and EPEL el6). That works as it's generally recognised that there shouldn't be major version upgrades and breakages within a release especially one that breaks things. > I'd be perfectly happy saying we will never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and > f17, but the reality is that there probably are people who want it. So you can always do a fedorapeople repository for those that want to experiment. > Along the same lines, I'd be happy saying we will not ship HekaFS in f18 > once glusterfs-3.3.x is out, but there are probably people who want > glusterfs-3.2.x, with or without HekaFS. Those people are then free to stick with Fedora 16, Fedora 17 or EL6. > 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? Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
