On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Volker Fröhlich <volke...@gmx.at> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:36 -0500, Greg Swift wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:29:26 +0200 >> > Fabrice Salvaire <f.salva...@genomicvision.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I upgraded the Zabbix package to the upstream version 2.0.2. It seems >> >> to work fine, except I don't tested everything. >> >> >> >> Thus I have the SRPM with the update for the spec file and some of >> >> the sources files. How can I provide it to EPEL ? >> > >> > File a bug against the epel Zabbix package and the maintainer can >> > review and apply your patches. >> >> its actually a touch more complex to that unless things have changed. >> The EPEL guidelines [1] state that major version updates are to be >> avoided with a goal of 'yum update' just working. > > I recently joined Dan Horak (sharkcz) in the work towards a 2.0 package > for Fedora and EPEL. > > It's pretty complex indeed. We're switching to two users to keep agent > and proxy/server isolated better. We also switched to Debian > Alternatives to choose between database implementations and have no > conflicting sub-packages. The draft is suitable for systemd and init > scripts -- having all necessary conditionals in place and hopefully > ending the existence of 4 different branches. > > I published a draft. I hope Dan can take a look at it soon. Anybody's > comment is highly appreciated. > > http://www.geofrogger.net/review/z2/zabbix20-2.0.2-3.el6.src.rpm > http://www.geofrogger.net/review/z2/zabbix.Fedora is a README, that will > become part of the package. > >> I'm not sure how >> big of a difference 1.8 -> 2.0, but 1.6 -> 1.8 was different enough. >> Currently EPEL5 has 1.6 release of zabbix and EPEL6 has 1.8 release. >> This has been talked about several times on list and I don't know that >> anyone came up with a good resolution. > > You definitely need to run a database upgrade. Since proxies and servers > must run the same major version, it'd be a good idea to also have it in > EPEL 5. > >> >> One of the options was to change the package name and host both >> releases in EPEL. I'm not sure how often this actually happens, or >> what the path to get there would be. > > That's the approach we took. zabbix20 conflicts with zabbix. Zabbix has > a good stable-policy, so relevant changes would only appear on major x.y > releases. They're aiming for regular major releases every 9 months from > now on.
awesomeness. Its great to see this. _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
