Hi fossologists, As many of you probably know, we are working on building RPM packages for FOSSology for use with RHEL4, CentOS 4, RHEL5 and CentOS 5.
In particular, the efforts of Bruno Cornec, Vincent (Ma Dong), Chan Benson, Jeff Sheltren and Matt Taggart have got the packages almost working. We are getting close but there are some issues we have to resolve. Specifically: 1. PostgreSQL versions RHEL4 and CentOS4 only provide PostgreSQL version 7.4 as part of their base distribution. The FOSSology project does not have the resources needed to test, validate, and support old versions of Postgres, so we are not planning to support the base distribution version of Postgres. Instead there appears to be two good alternatives: a. The PostgreSQL project makes available tested, stable RPM packages of Postgres 8.1 that are designed for RHEL4 and later distros. These are available today from http://www.postgresql.org/download/ b. For CentOS4 users and more adventurous RHEL4 users, the CentOS project has a set of packages called "CentOSPlus" that includes a modern Postgres 8.1 package. Information on the CentOSPlus project is available at http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories Fortunately RHEL5/CentOS5 provide a native Postgres 8.1 package, so for these newer distributions this is not an issue. 2. Other dependencies FOSSology has several unusual dependencies that we require to handle metadata analysis and file unpacking, among other things. Several of these dependencies do not have RHEL or CentOS packages for either version 4 or version 5 of those distros. The EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux) project is "a volunteer-based community effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on packages that complement the Fedora-based Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and its compatible spinoffs such as CentOS or Scientific Linux" (from their website at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL ) Some of the un-met FOSSology dependencies are already packaged in EPEL. Still others are not available in EPEL at present. Long-term, I believe, it will be best to package all of our dependencies in EPEL. In the short term, for the 1.1.0 release, it is not practical to try and get all of those un-met dependencies into EPEL. For that reason, for the 1.1.0 release we will need to document the besk known sources we can find (such as the PBone repository and others) for the un-met dependencies. These will not be "official" or "blessed" or even "supported" by Red Hat, CentOS, the upstream projects, or us. But at least it will provide a path forward for our RHEL-based users. Thoughts, comments? Dan _______________________________________________ fossology mailing list [email protected] http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
