[CentOS-devel] Community build services and EPEL8

Stephen John Smoogen

smooge at gmail.com
Sat Jul 13 19:28:17 UTC 2019


On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 19:28, Kaleb Keithley <kkeithle at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 3:32 PM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 13:24, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> I am laughing at this because one of the reasons why things like gluster
>> and openstack are no longer available in EPEL was because they were moving
>> too fast for users and we were getting complaints about those package
>> changes being broken.--
>>
>
> I don't remember anyone complaining, per se, about this with GlusterFS.
>
>
One of the issues I have with EPEL that I think the CentOS SIG's solves is
the communication channels for products. If you 'break' someone you get the
complaint to you. In EPEL products like openstack, gluster, etc end up
pinging someone on the EPEL committee first to fix it for them... so most
of the complaints when these things happen don't get to your team. This is
one big reason I am not asking/begging etc to have gluster back in EPEL. It
is not a good fit. You don't get what you want from us, and people don't
communicate their problems to you.


>  What I do remember is that, independent of any complaints there may or
> may not have been, I retired GlusterFS in EPEL when Red Hat started
> shipping GlusterFS as a product, because EPEL policy stipulated that we
> could not ship packages that are/were in RHEL.
>
>
Yes. Parts of gluster got pulled into the channels we said we wouldn't
overload.. and that made having it in EPEL not allowed.


> One issue we did have in EPEL was the inability to concurrently ship two
> or more major versions of GlusterFS for each of the actively maintained
> branches of GlusterFS; something that the CentOS Storage SIG does allow us
> to do.  I.e. some people who were using, e.g., GlusterFS 3.4.x in
> production on RHEL/CentOS did not want to be forced to update their systems
> to GlusterFS 3.5.x, and then later on GlusterFS 3.6.x, 3.7.x, 3.8.x, and so
> on.
>
>
Again completely agree with. This is not what EPEL is a good fit for
without a lot of work. Supposedly this will all be fixable in our modular
future... but that is a 2-3 year long journey fro anyone.


> --
>
> Kaleb
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20190713/c55f1814/attachment-0004.html>


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list