Hi guys, On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 09:01:17PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 08:33:41PM +0100, Julien Pivotto wrote: > > Dear HAProxy Community, > > > > I have started building HAProxy 2.x packages for CentOS. > > > > It includes HAProxy 2.0.10 and 2.1.0. > > > > You can find them here: > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/roidelapluie/haproxy/ > > > > https://github.com/roidelapluie/haproxy-rpm > > which is based on https://git.centos.org/rpms/rh-haproxy18-haproxy > > > > Repo config: > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/roidelapluie/haproxy/repo/epel-7/roidelapluie-haproxy-epel-7.repo > > > > Copr is the Fedora public tool to build packages. Build logs are public, > > as well as source RPM's etc. So you are free to review it. > > > > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for your work, we really lack up-to-date packages for centos/rhel, > that's a relief people are still trying to update them. :-) > > We don't really have an official rhel/centos package for HAProxy, but there > are > multiple ones. I think it could be really great if people interested in > HAProxy > for redhat-based distribution could work together to maintain one "official" > repository like we have for debian/ubuntu. (http://haproxy.debian.net) > > We already knew about these ones: > > - http://haproxy.hongens.nl/ > - https://repo.ius.io/7/x86_64/packages/h/ > > But none of them are up to date with the latest version of their branches . > > I didn't knew about Copr, it looks like a PPA-like for redhat from what I can > see, it could be a really great platform to do that.
Indeed that looks good. We'll need to include Ryan in this discussion, he's the maintainer of the official RPMs for RHEL. I'm purposely not CCing him as I know he's very busy this week, but I sense that we're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel here. Regarding Lua, it is among the packages which don't move fast and which present very little long-term risk, so it can very well be included as a static dependency if not supported in certain distros. I've already been wondering whether or not we should include a local copy of it into the haproxy source code, but I really hate doing this. I'd rather help packagers build it locally in fact. Thanks, Willy