On Wed, Nov 27, 2013, at 06:15 PM, Jefferson Ogata wrote: > On 2013-11-28 01:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On 28 Nov 2013, at 11:29 am, Jefferson Ogata <linux...@antibozo.net> wrote: > >> On 2013-11-28 00:12, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > >>> Just so you know: > >>> > >>> RedHat's (centos, actually) latest build of resource-agents sets $HA_BIN > >>> to /usr/libexec/heartbeat. The daemon in heartbeat-3.0.4 RPM is > >>> /usr/lib64/heartbeat/heartbeat so $HA_BIN/heartbeat binary does not exist. > >>> > >>> (And please hold the "upgrade to pacemaker" comments: I'm hoping if I > >>> wait just a little bit longer I can upgrade to ceph and openstack -- or > >>> retire, whichever comes first ;) > >> > >> Hey, "upgrading" to pacemaker wouldn't necessarily help. Red Hat broke > >> that last month by dropping most of the resource agents they'd initially > >> shipped. (Don't you love "Technology Previews"?) > > > > Thats the whole point behind the "tech preview" label... it means the > > software is not yet in a form that Red Hat will support and is subject to > > changes _exactly_ like the one made to resource-agents. > > Um, yes, i know. That's why i mentioned it.
Ok, sorry, I wasn't sure. > It's nicer, however, when Red Hat takes a conservative position with the > Tech Preview. They could have shipped a minimal set of resource agents > in the first place, 3 years ago we didn't know if pacemaker would _ever_ be supported in RHEL-6, so stripping out agents wasn't on our radar. I'm sure the only reason it and the rest of pacemaker shipped at all was to humor the guy they'd just hired. It was only at the point that supporting pacemaker in 6.5 became likely that someone took a look at the full list and had a heart-attack. > so people would have a better idea what they had to > provide on their own end, instead of pulling the rug out with nary a > mention of what they were doing. Yes, that was not good. One of the challenges I find at Red Hat is the gaps between when a decision is made, when we're allowed to talk about it and when customers find out about it. As a developermore its the things we spent significant time on that first come to mind when writing release notes, not the 3s it took to remove some files from the spec file - even though the latter is going to have a bigger affect :-( We can only say that lessons have been learned and that we will do better if there is a similar situation next time. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
