[Bug 1885415] Review Request: haproxy18 - HAProxy reverse proxy for high availability environments

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885415

Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(carl@xxxxxxxxxx)



--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Carl George 🤠 from comment #2)
> 1. The package should to be named haproxy1.8 to comply with the naming
> guidelines [1].  Please close the current fedscm repo request [2] and re-do
> it as haproxy1.8 (still with the `--exception` flag).

Did I overlook something? It says "All other packages derived from it MUST
include the base name suffixed by either: [bullet point] The package version,
which SHOULD include the periods present in the original version. [...]" - not
MUST, thus "haproxy18" should be sufficient.

> 2. The /var/lib/haproxy directory already exists in the RHEL haproxy
> package.  Sharing the state directory could disturb the base package, which
> is not allowed by EPEL policy [3].

I have explicitly ensured in the default configuration of haproxy18, that there
is no file conflict or overlap within the state directory at al. Further on, I
even actually tested whether both packages can coexist during run-time without
disturbing each other. Note that the official SCL
rh-haproxy18-haproxy-1.8.24-2.el7 does exactly the same here (because they all
share the haproxy user/group and its home directory, while changing the home
directory of the haproxy user actually would disturb the base package).

> 3. I understand what you're trying to do with the syspaths subpackage, but
> similar to the previous item, this is not allowed by policy, as the files
> would conflict with the RHEL haproxy package.

Even this is a completely optional subpackage, the admin needs to explicitly
install? If that remains the only blocker, I will drop the subpackage then.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux