How about, if it's not an EPEL repo, you make a separate release package
for it? Just like the epel-release package, but pinted to your
repository, so it's a separate installation and not part of EPEL? Then it
would be moe like repoforge, jpackage, Percona, and Jenkins repos.
On Fri, Oct 18,
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
How about, if it's not an EPEL repo, you make a separate release package
for it? Just like the epel-release package, but pinted to your
repository, so it's a separate installation and not part of EPEL? Then it
would be moe like repoforge, jpackage, Percona, and Jenkins
On 18 October 2013 12:32, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
Before long RHEL will ship selected client-side-only glusterfs RPMs and it
will become necessary to withdraw glusterfs (and hekafs) packages from EPEL.
If you haven't followed along in fedora-devel, here's (what I think
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
But instead of withdrawing it, what if I were to alter it to simply install
/etc/yum.repos.d/community-glusterfs.repo file?
See
On 18/10/13 13:38, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
Before too much longer I will need to withdraw the glusterfs.
(glusterfs-3.2.7 fwiw, very out of date, this version is a Requires for
another package, HekaFS.)
Withdrawal becomes necessary when RHEL starts to ship a subset of the
glusterfs packages.
On 10/18/2013 09:55 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 18/10/13 13:38, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
Before too much longer I will need to withdraw the glusterfs.
(glusterfs-3.2.7 fwiw, very out of date, this version is a Requires for
another package, HekaFS.)
Withdrawal becomes necessary when RHEL starts
- Original Message -
From: Kaleb S. KEITHLEY kkeit...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 10:30:53 AM
Subject: Re: how to withdraw glusterfs from epel?
On 10/18/2013 10:09 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:03:28 -0400
Kaleb S
On 10/18/2013 10:54 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
Would it be against the guidelines to move to packaging it (the software
itself, not a repo file) in Fedora/EPEL as glusterfs-community?
I'm sure it is against the guidelines. Under any name it'd still be
shipping a set of RPMs that conflict
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:06:31AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 10/18/2013 10:54 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
Would it be against the guidelines to move to packaging it (the software
itself, not a repo file) in Fedora/EPEL as glusterfs-community?
I'm sure it is against the
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:49:54 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that would be acceptable. It's content rather than code so
falls under this section of the fedora packaging guidelines:
10 matches
Mail list logo