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

Re: Keep or remove GlusterFS from EPEL-6?



On 05/16/2012 02:42 PM, Steve Traylen wrote:

On May 16, 2012, at 2:32 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:

Hello,

in #gluster on Freenode, we discussed a little if GlusterFS is allowed in EPEL-6. EPEL-5 is not affected as Red Hat does not provide packages for GlusterFS on RHEL-5.

The policy that may forbid GlusterFS in EPEL-6:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy mentions "packages from EPEL should never replace packages from the target base distribution - including those on the base distribution as well as layered products".

The Red Hat Storage product that includes GlusterFS is like an appliance. Customers who buy a subscription get access to a DVD download of RHEL-6.2.z (Extended Update Support, EUS) with the packages from an additional RHN-ChildChannel. It is not possible/intended/supported to use this RHN-ChildChannel without installing your system from the "Red Hat Storage" DVD. Therefore this RHN-ChildChannel is a little different from other layered products.

The first time a Red Hat product that includes GlusterFS was released in November 2011. EPEL-6 already contained the GlusterFS packages. The EPEL-policy was not harmed, but now GlusterFS is made available by Red Hat, and it is possible to have two sources for GlusterFS (one being EPEL-6, the other through the Red Hat Storage ChildChannel).

The question I have now:
Is it needed to block the glusterfs package from EPEL-6? Even if most RHEL users will not have access to EUS channel(s) that contain the glusterfs packages?


My understanding is that glusterfs does not (and preferably for me at least) should not be removed:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_can_I_know_which_packages_are_part_of_RHEL.3F

states what packages should be considered as a conflict, .. I thought some where was page that
exactly dealt with the extra RHEL streams however the Guidelines link you posted suggest I may be wrong though
given the binary derivatives don't genrally distribute these  extra streams its a bit of a tall order.

See:


Not sure if it helps, but the packages are here:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/RHS/2.0/SRPMS/

They are not under the "os" directory where most packages live:
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6Server/en/os/

It may not be a problem for binary derivatives of RHEL if they don't provide glusterfs packages. But this may be a problem for people who use the Red Hat Storage bits.

Cheers,
Niels


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