On 06/07/2012 01:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the
approval process?
Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package...
It is certainly not required. Feature process is a
On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the
> approval process?
>
> Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package...
It is certainly not required. Feature process is a marketing and
coordination tool. Not
On 06/06/2012 07:56 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fed
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
> wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
>>> strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's c
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
>> strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
>> for those that wish to play. For gluster 3
On 05/30/2012 03:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
>> strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
>> for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fedorapeople repo of 3.3 if it's considered worthwhile
for those that wish to play. For gluster 3.3 I suggest a feature page
for F-18 / rawhide. Is it feasible for the
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>>
>> On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>>>
And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tha
On 05/30/2012 01:34 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in
EPEL when it's already
On 05/30/2012 01:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
And FWIW, doing nothing doesn't resolve the glusterfs in EPEL versus
glusterfs in the RHS Channel issue.
That's a different story entirely, and why would you want gluster in
EPEL when it's already in RHEL? What's the difference?
This has been
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I'd be perfectly happy saying we will never ship glusterfs-3.3.x on f16 and
>> f17, but the reality is that there probably are people who want it.
>
> So you can always do a fedorapeople repository for those that want to
> experiment.
I s
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 01:23:42PM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 01:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> >On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
> >>unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't r
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
>> unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any
>> user really need to parallel instal
On 05/30/2012 01:08 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any
user really need to parallel install both versions of glust
On 05/30/2012 12:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
To be honest it's a pain in the neck to deal with such packages, and
unless there's an overwhelming need, I can't recommend it. Does any
user really need to parallel install both versions of glusterfs?
No, and in fact that would not work. (And
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:46:46AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>
> What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
> respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7),
> and the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
>
> I.e. what is currently
On 05/30/2012 11:46 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>
> What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
> respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and
> the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
>
> I.e. what is currently glusterfs-3.2.6-2
What hoops do I have to jump through, approvals, etc., do I need to
respin glusterfs rpms as glusterfs32 (for 3.2.6, and soon 3.2.7), and
the imminent glusterfs-3.3.0, which would be glusterfs33.
I.e. what is currently glusterfs-3.2.6-2.{fc16,fc17,el6} would become
glusterfs32-3.2.6-x.{fc16,
18 matches
Mail list logo
