OK, I have sorted out a new directory structure and tarred it up at http://bender.it.swin.edu.au/centos-3/csgfs-20050722.tar
The packages are currently signed with the CentOS-2 key (on a CentOS-2) box which for some reason makes rpm -K on a CentOS-3 box unhappy. If they are not suitable I can make some changes.
These have not been compared in any way to the Red Hat shipped versions. I have a feeling that Red Hat don't ship binaries, but perhaps they just kept it hushed. I don't know anyone who uses the RH GFS.
I have also included perl-Net-SSLeay from Dag's EL3 repo. This is required for some of the fencing scripts like iLO.
John.
Tru Huynh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the $arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since for CentOS-4 they work together)
I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red Hat Way'?
If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
cheers,
Tru
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel