Keep or remove GlusterFS from EPEL-6?

[Karanbir Singh]

Hi Guys,

On 05/17/2012 03:08 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> "EPEL6 will not ship any packages that have src.rpms on public mirrors
> under 6* directories with the following exception: If the binary rpm is
> only shipped in some arches in RHEL, EPEL may ship a package as close
> as possible to the RHEL version with a leading package Release of 0.
> (ie, libfoo-1.2-0.x) (note that EPEL maintainer must keep up exactly
> with the RHEL src.rpm where possible)."
> 
> Cite:
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meetbot/teams/epel/epel.2011-01-03-20.30.html
> 
> So, under this current policy, glusterfs should sadly be removed from
> EPEL. 
> 

Addressing this from the CentOS point of view, in that lots of CentOS
users consume EPEL as well : We would be happy to bridge that gap and
host stuff like glusterfs directly in CentOS-Extras, which is setup and
enabled by default on all CentOS installs.

However, I am slightly concerned about this move. Glusterfs is a single
example : there are a lot of things that are shipped by Red Hat under
various variants and layered products that overlap with content hosted
in EPEL - including stuff like puppet, mongodb, lots of python-* and
ruby-* etc; so rather than single out glusterfs and drop it, please
clarify the policy.

My, as an outsider understanding, has been that components unsuiteable
for EPEL include exclusively content hosted at ftp.r.c under the OS/ dir
- I suspect this is the impression carried forward by many ( if not most
) people.

-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219    | Yahoo IM: z00dax      | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc