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

Re: Keep or remove GlusterFS from EPEL-6?

Niels de Vos wrote:
> My main concern is that different versions of GlusterFS (3.2.x vs
> 3.3.x) are not compatible. It will not be possible to use the EPEL
> 3.2.x version to mount a volume with the native GlusterFS protocol
> from the Red Hat Storage 2.0 (RHS) appliance which is based on
> GlusterFS 3.3.x. The previous release called Red Hat Storage Software
> Appliance 3.2 (RHSSA) uses GlusterFS 3.2...
> One release or the other would have problems :-/

I instantly thought of that when this first came up, as RHS 2.0 was
clearly on my mind.  But then going to the other way, what happens
when RHS 2.0 is "2-3 years old," and people want Gluster 3.4, 4.0,
etc...?  The fact that the RHS* product lines exist changes
everything, regardless of what was done before.

Again, thinking of RHS 2.0 was my #1 reason for posting from the
get-go, as much as I was also, and quite selfishly, thinking of the
enterprises I work with.

Is EPEL really where layered products go?
Where does the bit-for-bit compatibility start and end in "EL Rebuilds"?
What about leading edge v. trailing edge for both?

And my greater thought ...

Shouldn't it be the trailing-edge OS where things become more and more
commodity (with more users, so fewer $$$ per users to develop,
backport, etc...)?  And the layered products be where the sustaining
costs -- backporting, certification, support, etc... -- end up being
more focused on (with less users, so more $$$ per user to develop,
backport, etc...)?  At the same time, there will still be some Red Hat
customers that feel layered products are "too slow moving," and they
will want more leading edge (without certification, support, etc...).

Again, just "my greater thought."  I'm not trying to state policy.
There's just a lot of things people don't always consider, but the
Fedora leadership ends up having to make hard answers on (often
upsetting some).

Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> AFAIK CentOS Scientific Linux etc dont ship all layered products.

Even ignoring the fact that Advanced Platform entitlements became
layered with EL6, I've noted several, layered products in CentOS
Extras over the years.  I've noted a lot of assumptions in this thread
that aren't always the case.  Again, nothing to do with policy either
way, just history and reality.

Again, I don't know and cannot speak about the policies of such
efforts, but if layered products are in EPEL, it does reduce any
consideration for EPEL with Red Hat customers who do pay for layered
products, as they will conflict.

I don't envy those who have to make the difficult decisions in the
Fedora Project on this matter.  They will never please everyone.

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