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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel -- John Newbigin Computer Systems Officer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin