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 beaten to death already. It's not in RHEL. It's in the RHS
Channel for RHSA. Some client-side bits will eventually be released in
RHEL7.
And there are more users of EPEL than just RHEL.
And since it's already in EPEL, and has been for a couple of years, as
glusterfs I'd say the burden is on the RHEL packagers to pick a name
that doesn't conflict with what's in EPEL. Unless the name gets changed
before then.
--
Kaleb
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
