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

Re: [Cluster-devel] mount.gfs2 obsolete upstream (scheduled to be removed)



Hi,

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:43 +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 02:16 PM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Just a reminder that when Fedora 14 is no longer being updated, we
> > intend to remove mount.gfs2 from the upstream gfs2-utils source. There
> > should be no user visible changes beyond the removal of the utility when
> > this happens as kernels and gfs2_controld have been able to use the new
> > system for mounting for some time.
> > 
> > So this is just a heads up so that it isn't too much of a surprise when
> > it happens in a few months time.
> > 
> > Also scheduled for removal are gfs2_quota and gfs2_tool. Both of these
> > will be removed shortly after Fedora 17 is released. They are both
> > considered obsolete and alternatives have been available for some time.
> > In the case of gfs2_quota, that means the generic quota package that is
> > supplied with Fedora. In the case of gfs2_tool, that means tunegfs2 or
> > mount options, depending on which feature is required.
> > 
> > If there are any questions, please let us know,
> > 
> > Steve.
> > 
> > 
> 
> It might be a good idea to lay down a map of upstream versions required
> to drop mount.gfs2 and quota.
> 
> New gfs2-utils without mount.gfs2 requires kernel > x.y.z and
> gfs_controld > a.b.c. (we ship gfs_controld from gfs2-utils, but people
> might still have old versions around... just in case)
> 
Yes, it was a long time ago, so I'll try and dig out the version. Any
2.6.3x kernel or newer should be ok though I think.

> similar for quota support.. is a new quota-tools version required?
> kernel? etc.
For certain operations a newer quota package is required, and there
needs to be a kernel with the XFS-style quota interface. Both have been
around for a while, and I'll also try and dig those details out nearer
the time.

The docs have all been updated to reflect the new way of doing things,
and there have been a number of previously posted reminders of this too,
so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

> 
> Mapping to fedora releases is only helpful to fedora users :) but it
> leaves other distros in the dark. Specially if some features are working
> in fedora only by meaning of local patches.
> 
> Cheers
> Fabio
> 
There are no local fedora patches. There is also no issue wrt
gfs_controld/gfs2_tool unless people are mixing and matching bits of
different versions of gfs2-utils, and in that case they are on their own
anyway,

Steve.



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