Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Serge Dubrouski wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 6:56 AM, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Serge Dubrouski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hello - >>>> >>>> Would it be possible to issue a bugfix release for Heartbeat 2.1.3 in >>>> the old version of packaging, i.e. without Pacmaker as a separate >>>> package? >>> >>> Basically no. >>> As indicated back in December, 2.1.3 was the last combined release. >>> The CRM from that release is now being maintained as the Pacemaker 0.6 >>> stable series which has monthly _bug-fix-only_ updates. >>> >>> Even if I wanted to, and the maintenance overhead of back-porting >>> everything wasn't a show-stopper, I'm not the one who's allowed to >>> authorize a release. >> >> >> Then my other questions is: Who supports current Heartbeat packages >> suitable for Pacemaker and where I can get sources for them with >> appropriate .spec files? > > Source rpms are available at the link below: > http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/server:/ha-clustering/ > > Essentially^, it is the _official_ 2.1.3 sources with a spec file that > doesn't build the CRM. > If you have any questions about the spec file, I'd be happy to answer them. > > I know it would be nice if we had RHEL4 binaries too, see below, but you > should be able to do a rpm rebuild without issue.
I'm not having much luck with that :( > > ^ There are also some differences in the way the packages are arranged, > we took the opportunity to do a cleanup of what files went where, but > that shouldn't affect most people (if anyone at all). > >> Of course it's not my business, > > As one of our users, its certainly your business :-) > >> but I think that you guys are badly hurting a whole project. > > Had the split not occurred, based on recent trends, you would _still_ be > waiting another 3,4,5 months for a release containing the fix. > Instead we were able to release the fix, in a release without any new > features!, over 2 months ago. > > While I'd not claim the current situation is perfect (yet), I would > claim that things are better than they were before. > >> For example Apache officially closed 2.0.XX >> branch and suggest everybody to move to 2.2.X, but they still issue >> bugfixes and security patches for that branch. In your case you >> suggest people to move to 2.1.3, which is known to have some critical >> bugs. > > I personally don't encourage people to use the 2.1.3 CRM - we've had two > bug-fix releases since then and I don't like to recommend releases I > know to have bugs. > The need for a platform to release bugfixes in a timely manner is why > I'd been working like crazy to get the Pacemaker packages out the door. > >> Of course you can suggest to move to Pacemaker + Heartbeat, but >> packages for such move are available from your site only > > Thats hardly my fault ;-) > The world doesn't stop turning just because Alan hasn't put out a new > release. > > Just to re-iterate though, the opensuse.org packages are built from the > "official" linux-ha.org sources that Alan has tested and tagged. > There is no reason why these packages should be any less reliable than > any others built from the same sources. > > And if you ever find a problem with the packaging, you'll find I'm quite > prompt at getting them repaired :-) > So far I've had very few problems reported in that area. > >> and you don't have packages for some critical OSes like RHEL >> 4.0/CentOS 4.0. > > At the moment we have binaries (and source packages) for 17 of the most > popular distro versions and 2 architectures. > Its unfortunate that we don't yet include your choice. > > I've been trying to get CentOS4/RHEL4 added to the list, however so far > we've not been able to get 10 potential users to demonstrate enough > demand for them to be added. I've been trying to get RHEL4/CentOS4 folks on this list to react and demonstrate the need for it as well. RHEL4/CentOS4 folks, _please please please_ wake up and request CentOS4/RHEL4 packages! RHEL4/CentOS people who use vendor packages only, _please_ respond as well, I'm sure the vendor package maintainers are keeping an eye on these repositories as well. You'd be speeding up the process for getting a better release from the vendor as well in my opinion. regards, Johan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
