On 06/08/2011 03:06 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:50:17AM +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 6/8/2011 10:16 AM, Keisuke MORI wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thank you for all your efforts for the new release. >>> >>> >>> 2011/6/7 Fabio M. Di Nitto <[email protected]>: >>>> Several changes have been made to the build system and the spec file to >>>> accommodate both projects´ needs. The most noticeable change is the >>>> option to select "all", "linux-ha" or "rgmanager" resource agents at >>>> configuration time, which will also set the default for the >>>> spec file. >>> >>> Why is the ldirectord package disabled on RHEL environment? >>> I would expect that it would be built as same as (linux-ha) >>> resource-agents-1.0.4 >>> so that we can use the upcoming 3.9.1 as the upgrade version. >> >> Because ldirectord requires libnet to build and libnet is not available >> on default RHEL (unless you explicitly enable EPEL). >> >> Florian, last time we spoke, we were trying to avoid adding BR on >> packages that are not part of RHEL, but then to build linux-ha agents we >> need cluster-glue* that are not part of RHEL anyway. >> >> We should be consistent here. >> >> I am ok to allow people to build ldirectord. >> >>> >>> We still use the resource-agents/ldirectord on many RHEL systems and >>> if it was missing >>> we can not upgrade them anymore. >> >> Understood, we are still smoothing a few corners after the merge. It´s >> good people are spotting those bits. >> >>> >>> >>>> NOTE: About the 3.9.x version (particularly for linux-ha folks): This >>>> version was chosen simply because the rgmanager set was already at >>>> 3.1.x. In order to make it easier for distribution, and to keep package >>>> upgrades linear, we decided to bump the number higher than both >>>> projects. There is no other special meaning associated with it. >>>> >>>> The final 3.9.1 release will take place soon. >>> >>> BTW why not 4.0? :) >>> just curious though. >> >> There is really nothing major in this release vs 1.0.4 for linux-ha and >> 3.1.x for rgmanager agents, other than co-exist in the same tree. > > Actually, while looking at it, I'd also like something else > rather than 3.9.x. Can't put my finger on what's exactly the > issue, but something like 4.0 would somehow look better. Is it > only me? > >> We will probably use 4.0 to introduce the new OCF standard and the new >> common clusterlabs/ provider and mark effectively the introduction of >> new features. > > 4.1?
I realize I'm bikeshedding, but my preference would be for 3.9 for this one, and 4.0 to implement the new standard. Like Fabio originally suggested. Cheers, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
