On 29 October 2010 12:23, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Pavlos Parissis > <pavlos.paris...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 29 October 2010 11:47, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: >> [...snip..] >>>>> There wont be unfortunately. >>>>> Some of the changes we needed to make involved the use of >>>>> g_hash_table_get_values() which only appeared in glib 2.14 >>>>> So EPEL5 is stuck on the 1.0 series. >>>> >>>> Does that mean I shouldn't use 1.1.x (x<4) on EPEL? I guess not since >>>> the change you mentioned is only in 1.1.4 >>>> I currently use 1.1.3 on EPEL 5.4 >>> >>> 1.1.3 is generally ok still, it was mostly performance stuff that went into >>> .4 >>> You could update glib manually and rebuild the 1.1.4 packages though... >> >> I wont go down this path. So, for EPEL 1.1.3 is the last available >> release without any upgrade paths, > > to be fair, there is an upgrade path, it just involves a version of > glib2 that was released less than 4 years ago > >> that's not very nice for production >> systems. I consider switching back to 1.0.9, which hopefully gets >> updated. > > 1.0.10 is almost done > > Initially, I moved to 1.1.3 in order to see if it solves bug #2500, which is not solved, and stayed on 1.1.3, even I am using pacemaker-1.0 schema, because I wanted to use the latest/greatest and get regular updates.
Since there is no realistic upgrade path to 1.1.4 on EPEL, I am wondering if there any benefit of staying on 1.1.3 compared to using 1.0.10. Andrew, thanks for the clarifications, very much appreciated. Pavlos _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker