On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 released? For the EPEL side possibly it might be worth going the glusterfs32 naming route and keep it simple and move it forward. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
