Am 28.05.2015 um 19:39 schrieb Denis Fateyev:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Michael Friedrich
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That's certainly true, but requires additional 2 repositories
beind added/trusted. Apart from EPEL, this becomes a critical
problem in certain (customer) environments. Although it's more of
an issue with RHEL support, and not necessarily CentOS then.
If you now add that packages.icinga.org
<http://packages.icinga.org> is also separate - yes, but there's a
review request pending for bringing Icinga2 into Fedora/EPEL.
That's depending on the work done on SELinux policies, and a
review of those.
What's the status for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055378 ? (it's about
icinga 1.x version).
AFAIK it stopped somewhere discussing how the database related packages
are pulled into the packages. Tbh I did not invest any more time into
it, waiting for more than 5 years for anyone catching up with it, and
also having Icinga 2 in mind and preparation at that time. And once
Icinga Web 2 is released, we'll go the same road. There's no need for
Core, ClassicUI or Web 1.x in EPEL anymore - at least not from our
perspective.
The review request happens once Shawn has verified the SELinux package -
https://dev.icinga.org/issues/5819
and the SELinux policies for review are described in this blogpost by
Dirk - https://dev.icinga.org/issues/8332 &
https://www.icinga.org/2015/04/03/icinga2-selinux-testers/
I thought there was a review request for icinga2 somewhere at bugzilla,
but apparently there's none so far, or it got lost.
Kind regards,
Michael
--
https://twitter.com/dnsmichi
https://github.com/dnsmichi
http://www.legendiary.at
_______________________________________________
icinga-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
