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. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
