Does that mean glusterfsd is in glusterfs-server or glusterfs-fuse? It is probably sufficient to leave glusterfs-fuse just have fuse.so and mount.glusterfs.in
+1
Another model can be:0. glusterfs-libs.rpm - libglusterfs.so libgfrpc.so libgfxdr.so1. glusterfs (depends on glusterfs-libs) - glusterfsd binary, glusterfs symlink, all common xlators2. glusterfs-rdma (depends on glusterfs) - rdma shared library3. glusterfs-geo-replication (depends on glusterfs) - geo-rep related objects
glusterfs-geo-replication depends on 'glusterfs-fuse' too, as it works on aux-mount points.
4. glusterfs-fuse (depends on glusterfs) - fuse xlator, mount.glusterfs5. glusterfs-server (depends on glusterfs) - server side xlators, config files6. glusterfs-api (depends on glusterfs-libs) - libgfapi.so and api.so7. glusterfs-resource-agents (depends on glusterfs)8. glusterfs-devel (depends on glusterfs-libs) - header files for libglusterfs9. glusterfs-api-devel (depends on glusterfs-api) - header files for gfapiThis way qemu will only pick up libgfapi.so libglusterfs.so libgfrpc.so and libgfxdr.so (the bare minimum to "just execute") for the binary to load at run time. Those who want to store vm images natively on gluster must also do a 'yum install glusterfs' to make gfapi 'useful'. This way Fedora qemu users who do not plan to use gluster will not get any of the xlator cruft.c) Kaleb mentioned about removing geo-replication objects from 'glusterfs' and having them in 'glusterfs-geo-replication' only. I think that might help unless we are breaking something in geo-replication by doing so. Do we remember the original intent behind packaging geo-replication objects in the 'glusterfs' package?
Which are the geo-replication objects in 'glusterfs'? I don't recall any incident where something from geo-replication package was moved into glusterfs package for a specific reason.d) Remove mac-compat.so, rot-13.so, symlink-cache.so from 'glusterfs'. As practically nobody uses these translators today, I don't see much value in packaging them.+1
