[users] drbd83 still in testing

[Joseph L. Casale]

Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

Thanks!
jlc

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at

http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo

I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have
my vote as well ;-)

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? ?http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

O.k. folks, a few questions:

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

Alan.

[Fabian Arrotin]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,

Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

Additionally, as already explained, the goal of the ELRepo project is to
increase the functionality of the RHEL kernel by providing kernel modules
for broader hardware support and additional features. It makes sense that
some users look for those packages in ELRepo (likely outside the scope of
CentOS).

As far as I know there are no real differences between the packages,
although the drbd83 package is renamed to drbd83-utils (iirc) and the
ELRepo project does not provide RHEL4 packages. They should be drop-in
replacable.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/0fc2fcaa/attachment.bin

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph,
It wasn't meant as a personal strike against anyone, I made more than one
inquiry towards it which wasn't met with action until Dag stepped in. Call
it coincidence, but specifically as a matter of timeline, it is how it
occurred. You are right though, the wording of that isn't great: I didn't
mean to imply Dag himself was the inspiration, sorry...

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph,
It wasn't meant as a personal strike against anyone, I made more than one
inquiry towards it which wasn't met with action until Dag stepped in. Call
it coincidence, but specifically as a matter of timeline, it is how it
occurred. You are right though, the wording of that isn't great: I didn't
mean to imply Dag himself was the inspiration, sorry...

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph,
It wasn't meant as a personal strike against anyone, I made more than one
inquiry towards it which wasn't met with action until Dag stepped in. Call
it coincidence, but specifically as a matter of timeline, it is how it
occurred. You are right though, the wording of that isn't great: I didn't
mean to imply Dag himself was the inspiration, sorry...

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph,
It wasn't meant as a personal strike against anyone, I made more than one
inquiry towards it which wasn't met with action until Dag stepped in. Call
it coincidence, but specifically as a matter of timeline, it is how it
occurred. You are right though, the wording of that isn't great: I didn't
mean to imply Dag himself was the inspiration, sorry...

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

Additionally, as already explained, the goal of the ELRepo project is to
increase the functionality of the RHEL kernel by providing kernel modules
for broader hardware support and additional features. It makes sense that
some users look for those packages in ELRepo (likely outside the scope of
CentOS).

As far as I know there are no real differences between the packages,
although the drbd83 package is renamed to drbd83-utils (iirc) and the
ELRepo project does not provide RHEL4 packages. They should be drop-in
replacable.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/0fc2fcaa/attachment-0001.bin

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

Additionally, as already explained, the goal of the ELRepo project is to
increase the functionality of the RHEL kernel by providing kernel modules
for broader hardware support and additional features. It makes sense that
some users look for those packages in ELRepo (likely outside the scope of
CentOS).

As far as I know there are no real differences between the packages,
although the drbd83 package is renamed to drbd83-utils (iirc) and the
ELRepo project does not provide RHEL4 packages. They should be drop-in
replacable.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/0fc2fcaa/attachment-0002.bin

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

Additionally, as already explained, the goal of the ELRepo project is to
increase the functionality of the RHEL kernel by providing kernel modules
for broader hardware support and additional features. It makes sense that
some users look for those packages in ELRepo (likely outside the scope of
CentOS).

As far as I know there are no real differences between the packages,
although the drbd83 package is renamed to drbd83-utils (iirc) and the
ELRepo project does not provide RHEL4 packages. They should be drop-in
replacable.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

That last sentence just isn't true.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/0fc2fcaa/attachment-0003.bin

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

Additionally, as already explained, the goal of the ELRepo project is to
increase the functionality of the RHEL kernel by providing kernel modules
for broader hardware support and additional features. It makes sense that
some users look for those packages in ELRepo (likely outside the scope of
CentOS).

As far as I know there are no real differences between the packages,
although the drbd83 package is renamed to drbd83-utils (iirc) and the
ELRepo project does not provide RHEL4 packages. They should be drop-in
replacable.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with the
packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any) between
those two packages ?
--
--
Fabian Arrotin

Let me clarify things and, at the same time, dispel a myth.

The ELRepo Project was founded to provide support for users of (Red
Hat's) Enterprise Linux operating systems and to augment the Upstream
products in those areas which are currently lacking.

As Red Hat's sources are also used by others to build derivatives (for
example, Scientific Linux) or clones (for example, CentOS) of the
Upstream Product (RHEL), the packages made available by the ELRepo
Project for are also compatible with Scientific Linux or CentOS. The
CentOS Project is "downstream" of both Red Hat and the ELRepo Project.

The CentOS Project has been, and still is, given as much support as
possible by my colleagues and I (up to the limit that the active
CentOS Project Developers allow us to give). Packages created by the
CentOS Project are, per se, for the users of its product, CentOS, and
not for users of RHEL.

There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

I trust that clarifies the situation.

Now to dispel the myth. Certain derogatory statements with regard to
the ELRepo Project have been circulating ever since it was founded.
The myth enhancers have tried to make a connection between those myths
and certain CentOS Project Developers, so much so that yet another
myth arose. The latter myth I find quite amusing and I reproduce it
below, in pseudo C-code:

(ajb !like cpd) || (cpd !like ajb) || ((ajb !like cpd) && (cpd !like ajb))

where ajb represents me and cpd represents a certain CentOS Project Developer.

Alan.

[Fabian Arrotin]

<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
BTW, i'm not myself a CentOS developer, just someone who had a
@centos.org email address alias by accident ;-)
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all
the CentOS users can directly install them without having to install
[another] third-party repo.
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists
between them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo
and Extras at the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm
sure Ralph (who is now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't
mind at all on that point ...

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
email address alias by accident ;-)

That, I know. But it is good that you mention it for others who are
not aware of the fact.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all the
CentOS users can directly install them without having to install [another]
third-party repo.

Wearing my associate of, supporter of and user of CentOS hat, I agree
with that sentiment.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

Regards,

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/3a534236/attachment.bin

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested

in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

Also I am not quite sure what you are referring to as a public
versioning system. RPMForge's svn is wide open. I would be quite
surprised if ELRepo doesn't.

However, AFAIK, versioned changes to packages in Extras are not publicly
accessible for some reason.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

It's not complicated at all, after all CentOS has drbd packages for
CentOS 4.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100812/9bca6b7f/attachment.bin

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

It's not complicated at all, after all CentOS has drbd packages for
CentOS 4.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100812/9bca6b7f/attachment-0001.bin

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

It's not complicated at all, after all CentOS has drbd packages for
CentOS 4.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100812/9bca6b7f/attachment-0002.bin

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Yury V. Zaytsev

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

It's not complicated at all, after all CentOS has drbd packages for
CentOS 4.

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100812/9bca6b7f/attachment-0003.bin

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

Also I am not quite sure what you are referring to as a public
versioning system. RPMForge's svn is wide open. I would be quite
surprised if ELRepo doesn't.

However, AFAIK, versioned changes to packages in Extras are not publicly
accessible for some reason.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

Also I am not quite sure what you are referring to as a public
versioning system. RPMForge's svn is wide open. I would be quite
surprised if ELRepo doesn't.

However, AFAIK, versioned changes to packages in Extras are not publicly
accessible for some reason.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

I guess it's up to Ralph to decide whether this makes sense or not. I
didn't have a look at the package code so I have no clue how complicated
is maintain some additional code to support RHEL4 in this case.

Also I am not quite sure what you are referring to as a public
versioning system. RPMForge's svn is wide open. I would be quite
surprised if ELRepo doesn't.

However, AFAIK, versioned changes to packages in Extras are not publicly
accessible for some reason.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested
in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

Not sure if that makes sense, as we don't produce RHEL4 packages it has no
support for it (anymore). What I think is essential is that we track
each other's changes. But for that we need a public versioning system.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested

in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested

in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

[Yury V. Zaytsev]

Post by Angenendt, Ralph
If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.
From what I understood they are actually wondering if you are interested

in pulling their SPEC from ELRepo into Extras instead of maintaining
your own package.

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

Regards,

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/3a534236/attachment-0001.bin

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

Regards,

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/3a534236/attachment-0002.bin

[Angenendt, Ralph]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

If you have looked at the spec file of our drbd packages and are content
with that, I'd have no problem with that ending up in elrepo, too. The
package needs to stay within CentOS extras anyway, as we cannot expect
users of that package to add another repository for getting the drbd
packages.

Regards,

Ralph

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.repoforge.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100811/3a534236/attachment-0003.bin

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
email address alias by accident ;-)

That, I know. But it is good that you mention it for others who are
not aware of the fact.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all the
CentOS users can directly install them without having to install [another]
third-party repo.

Wearing my associate of, supporter of and user of CentOS hat, I agree
with that sentiment.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
email address alias by accident ;-)

That, I know. But it is good that you mention it for others who are
not aware of the fact.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all the
CentOS users can directly install them without having to install [another]
third-party repo.

Wearing my associate of, supporter of and user of CentOS hat, I agree
with that sentiment.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
email address alias by accident ;-)

That, I know. But it is good that you mention it for others who are
not aware of the fact.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all the
CentOS users can directly install them without having to install [another]
third-party repo.

Wearing my associate of, supporter of and user of CentOS hat, I agree
with that sentiment.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
email address alias by accident ;-)

That, I know. But it is good that you mention it for others who are
not aware of the fact.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all the
CentOS users can directly install them without having to install [another]
third-party repo.

Wearing my associate of, supporter of and user of CentOS hat, I agree
with that sentiment.

Post by Fabian Arrotin
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists between
them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo and Extras at
the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm sure Ralph (who is
now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't mind at all on that
point ...

Wearing my co-founder and administrator of the ELRepo Project hat, I
would leave it with Ralph to make contact and discuss that with us.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Fabian Arrotin]

<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
BTW, i'm not myself a CentOS developer, just someone who had a
@centos.org email address alias by accident ;-)
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all
the CentOS users can directly install them without having to install
[another] third-party repo.
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists
between them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo
and Extras at the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm
sure Ralph (who is now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't
mind at all on that point ...

[Fabian Arrotin]

<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
BTW, i'm not myself a CentOS developer, just someone who had a
@centos.org email address alias by accident ;-)
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all
the CentOS users can directly install them without having to install
[another] third-party repo.
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists
between them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo
and Extras at the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm
sure Ralph (who is now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't
mind at all on that point ...

[Fabian Arrotin]

<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
BTW, i'm not myself a CentOS developer, just someone who had a
@centos.org email address alias by accident ;-)
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all
the CentOS users can directly install them without having to install
[another] third-party repo.
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists
between them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo
and Extras at the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm
sure Ralph (who is now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't
mind at all on that point ...

[Fabian Arrotin]

<big snip>

Post by Alan Bartlett
There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

Not at all, I was just curious, that's all :-)
BTW, i'm not myself a CentOS developer, just someone who had a
@centos.org email address alias by accident ;-)
That's a good point that ELRepo provides kmod for RHEL (or
derivatives/clones) but on the other hand I also hope that CentOS will
continue to provide those drbd packages in the Extras repo, so that all
the CentOS users can directly install them without having to install
[another] third-party repo.
If those packages are exactly at the same level and no diff exists
between them, why not using the same spec that can be used for ELRepo
and Extras at the same time ? Maybe i'm dreaming a little bit but i'm
sure Ralph (who is now the drbd package maintainer for CentOS) doesn't
mind at all on that point ...

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with the
packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any) between
those two packages ?
--
--
Fabian Arrotin

Let me clarify things and, at the same time, dispel a myth.

The ELRepo Project was founded to provide support for users of (Red
Hat's) Enterprise Linux operating systems and to augment the Upstream
products in those areas which are currently lacking.

As Red Hat's sources are also used by others to build derivatives (for
example, Scientific Linux) or clones (for example, CentOS) of the
Upstream Product (RHEL), the packages made available by the ELRepo
Project for are also compatible with Scientific Linux or CentOS. The
CentOS Project is "downstream" of both Red Hat and the ELRepo Project.

The CentOS Project has been, and still is, given as much support as
possible by my colleagues and I (up to the limit that the active
CentOS Project Developers allow us to give). Packages created by the
CentOS Project are, per se, for the users of its product, CentOS, and
not for users of RHEL.

There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

I trust that clarifies the situation.

Now to dispel the myth. Certain derogatory statements with regard to
the ELRepo Project have been circulating ever since it was founded.
The myth enhancers have tried to make a connection between those myths
and certain CentOS Project Developers, so much so that yet another
myth arose. The latter myth I find quite amusing and I reproduce it
below, in pseudo C-code:

(ajb !like cpd) || (cpd !like ajb) || ((ajb !like cpd) && (cpd !like ajb))

where ajb represents me and cpd represents a certain CentOS Project Developer.

Alan.

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with the
packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any) between
those two packages ?
--
--
Fabian Arrotin

Let me clarify things and, at the same time, dispel a myth.

The ELRepo Project was founded to provide support for users of (Red
Hat's) Enterprise Linux operating systems and to augment the Upstream
products in those areas which are currently lacking.

As Red Hat's sources are also used by others to build derivatives (for
example, Scientific Linux) or clones (for example, CentOS) of the
Upstream Product (RHEL), the packages made available by the ELRepo
Project for are also compatible with Scientific Linux or CentOS. The
CentOS Project is "downstream" of both Red Hat and the ELRepo Project.

The CentOS Project has been, and still is, given as much support as
possible by my colleagues and I (up to the limit that the active
CentOS Project Developers allow us to give). Packages created by the
CentOS Project are, per se, for the users of its product, CentOS, and
not for users of RHEL.

There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

I trust that clarifies the situation.

Now to dispel the myth. Certain derogatory statements with regard to
the ELRepo Project have been circulating ever since it was founded.
The myth enhancers have tried to make a connection between those myths
and certain CentOS Project Developers, so much so that yet another
myth arose. The latter myth I find quite amusing and I reproduce it
below, in pseudo C-code:

(ajb !like cpd) || (cpd !like ajb) || ((ajb !like cpd) && (cpd !like ajb))

where ajb represents me and cpd represents a certain CentOS Project Developer.

Alan.

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with the
packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any) between
those two packages ?
--
--
Fabian Arrotin

Let me clarify things and, at the same time, dispel a myth.

The ELRepo Project was founded to provide support for users of (Red
Hat's) Enterprise Linux operating systems and to augment the Upstream
products in those areas which are currently lacking.

As Red Hat's sources are also used by others to build derivatives (for
example, Scientific Linux) or clones (for example, CentOS) of the
Upstream Product (RHEL), the packages made available by the ELRepo
Project for are also compatible with Scientific Linux or CentOS. The
CentOS Project is "downstream" of both Red Hat and the ELRepo Project.

The CentOS Project has been, and still is, given as much support as
possible by my colleagues and I (up to the limit that the active
CentOS Project Developers allow us to give). Packages created by the
CentOS Project are, per se, for the users of its product, CentOS, and
not for users of RHEL.

There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

I trust that clarifies the situation.

Now to dispel the myth. Certain derogatory statements with regard to
the ELRepo Project have been circulating ever since it was founded.
The myth enhancers have tried to make a connection between those myths
and certain CentOS Project Developers, so much so that yet another
myth arose. The latter myth I find quite amusing and I reproduce it
below, in pseudo C-code:

(ajb !like cpd) || (cpd !like ajb) || ((ajb !like cpd) && (cpd !like ajb))

where ajb represents me and cpd represents a certain CentOS Project Developer.

Alan.

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Fabian Arrotin
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

It doesn't, but I asked for the outdated packages that were not being
maintained to be removed in CentOS repo. Dag decided to build new packages
which then inspired the CentOS packages to be resurrected.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Fabian Arrotin

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,
Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with the
packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any) between
those two packages ?
--
--
Fabian Arrotin

Let me clarify things and, at the same time, dispel a myth.

The ELRepo Project was founded to provide support for users of (Red
Hat's) Enterprise Linux operating systems and to augment the Upstream
products in those areas which are currently lacking.

As Red Hat's sources are also used by others to build derivatives (for
example, Scientific Linux) or clones (for example, CentOS) of the
Upstream Product (RHEL), the packages made available by the ELRepo
Project for are also compatible with Scientific Linux or CentOS. The
CentOS Project is "downstream" of both Red Hat and the ELRepo Project.

The CentOS Project has been, and still is, given as much support as
possible by my colleagues and I (up to the limit that the active
CentOS Project Developers allow us to give). Packages created by the
CentOS Project are, per se, for the users of its product, CentOS, and
not for users of RHEL.

There is no competition between the ELRepo Project and the CentOS
Project, from where my colleagues and I stand. Are you, Fabian with
your more intimate knowledge of the internal workings of the CentOS
Project, telling me that the developers of the CentOS Project have
decided that there should be a competition? If so, sorry, we decline
to take part.

I trust that clarifies the situation.

Now to dispel the myth. Certain derogatory statements with regard to
the ELRepo Project have been circulating ever since it was founded.
The myth enhancers have tried to make a connection between those myths
and certain CentOS Project Developers, so much so that yet another
myth arose. The latter myth I find quite amusing and I reproduce it
below, in pseudo C-code:

(ajb !like cpd) || (cpd !like ajb) || ((ajb !like cpd) && (cpd !like ajb))

where ajb represents me and cpd represents a certain CentOS Project Developer.

Alan.

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

Broadly speaking, the maintainer of a package should be a person who
regularly uses the product, is (preferably) familiar with its
innermost workings and monitors the developments made at its source
level. This may be routine bug fixes or a new release. The maintainer
should consider the upstream developments in the light the fact that
ELRepo provided packages are for users of Enterprise Linux systems and
thus are not updated just to remain at the leading edge. Having made
the decision that the package should be updated, the maintainer would
locally build and test the updated package. Once satisfied, the
updated source package would then be passed to a member of the ELRepo
Administration Team for building, signing and pushing to the
repository.

In the case of this drbd83 package, it would be logical for the
maintainer to make that contact with ELRepo administration via Dag,
the initial package builder.

Dag, Akemi, Phil & Steve -- Please feel free to expand on the above
and fill in anything that I have missed. ;-)

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

Other fellow members of the Admin team -- Once the package maintainer
issue is resolved, will you be willing to support the promotion?

Alan / burakkucat.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a
day/week using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They
had been using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small
community of people to test them.

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to
subscribe to a package and automatically receive update notices for
testing and stable packages. Something to think about :-)

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to subscribe
to a package and automatically receive update notices for testing and stable
packages. Something to think about :-)

Indeed. To be discussed, at a later date, internally and not on the
RPMforge-users m/l. I have no intention in suggesting /
(half-)promising / formulating any process that we (internally) are
not happy with / in complete agreement with. We have standards to
maintain. :-D

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale
As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

A note to confirm that the drbd83 kmod packages have now been promoted
from elrepo-testing to the main repository. They will be visible
within the next half an hour.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale
As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

A note to confirm that the drbd83 kmod packages have now been promoted
from elrepo-testing to the main repository. They will be visible
within the next half an hour.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale
As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

A note to confirm that the drbd83 kmod packages have now been promoted
from elrepo-testing to the main repository. They will be visible
within the next half an hour.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale
As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

A note to confirm that the drbd83 kmod packages have now been promoted
from elrepo-testing to the main repository. They will be visible
within the next half an hour.

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to subscribe
to a package and automatically receive update notices for testing and stable
packages. Something to think about :-)

Indeed. To be discussed, at a later date, internally and not on the
RPMforge-users m/l. I have no intention in suggesting /
(half-)promising / formulating any process that we (internally) are
not happy with / in complete agreement with. We have standards to
maintain. :-D

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to subscribe
to a package and automatically receive update notices for testing and stable
packages. Something to think about :-)

Indeed. To be discussed, at a later date, internally and not on the
RPMforge-users m/l. I have no intention in suggesting /
(half-)promising / formulating any process that we (internally) are
not happy with / in complete agreement with. We have standards to
maintain. :-D

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a day/week
using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They had been
using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small community
of people to test them.

That is understood. I shall, accordingly perform the promotion
tomorrow, Thursday Aug 12 2010 (BST, aka UTC+1).

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to subscribe
to a package and automatically receive update notices for testing and stable
packages. Something to think about :-)

Indeed. To be discussed, at a later date, internally and not on the
RPMforge-users m/l. I have no intention in suggesting /
(half-)promising / formulating any process that we (internally) are
not happy with / in complete agreement with. We have standards to
maintain. :-D

Alan / burakkucat.

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a
day/week using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They
had been using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small
community of people to test them.

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to
subscribe to a package and automatically receive update notices for
testing and stable packages. Something to think about :-)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a
day/week using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They
had been using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small
community of people to test them.

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to
subscribe to a package and automatically receive update notices for
testing and stable packages. Something to think about :-)

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

We are using it as well and are doing several test-installations a
day/week using these packages. No problems have been reported yet. They
had been using the "official" (rebuilt) packages from Linbit which were
kernel-dependent.

Post by Alan Bartlett
Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

I am willing to upgrade the packages and maintain them regarding listening
to bug-reports and fixing items. But I cannot guarantee to have an
environment for testing in the future. So we still require a small
community of people to test them.

Our website probably should allow to build communities and improve
communication between users of packages. People should be able to
subscribe to a package and automatically receive update notices for
testing and stable packages. Something to think about :-)

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

Broadly speaking, the maintainer of a package should be a person who
regularly uses the product, is (preferably) familiar with its
innermost workings and monitors the developments made at its source
level. This may be routine bug fixes or a new release. The maintainer
should consider the upstream developments in the light the fact that
ELRepo provided packages are for users of Enterprise Linux systems and
thus are not updated just to remain at the leading edge. Having made
the decision that the package should be updated, the maintainer would
locally build and test the updated package. Once satisfied, the
updated source package would then be passed to a member of the ELRepo
Administration Team for building, signing and pushing to the
repository.

In the case of this drbd83 package, it would be logical for the
maintainer to make that contact with ELRepo administration via Dag,
the initial package builder.

Dag, Akemi, Phil & Steve -- Please feel free to expand on the above
and fill in anything that I have missed. ;-)

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

Other fellow members of the Admin team -- Once the package maintainer
issue is resolved, will you be willing to support the promotion?

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

Broadly speaking, the maintainer of a package should be a person who
regularly uses the product, is (preferably) familiar with its
innermost workings and monitors the developments made at its source
level. This may be routine bug fixes or a new release. The maintainer
should consider the upstream developments in the light the fact that
ELRepo provided packages are for users of Enterprise Linux systems and
thus are not updated just to remain at the leading edge. Having made
the decision that the package should be updated, the maintainer would
locally build and test the updated package. Once satisfied, the
updated source package would then be passed to a member of the ELRepo
Administration Team for building, signing and pushing to the
repository.

In the case of this drbd83 package, it would be logical for the
maintainer to make that contact with ELRepo administration via Dag,
the initial package builder.

Dag, Akemi, Phil & Steve -- Please feel free to expand on the above
and fill in anything that I have missed. ;-)

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

Other fellow members of the Admin team -- Once the package maintainer
issue is resolved, will you be willing to support the promotion?

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

Broadly speaking, the maintainer of a package should be a person who
regularly uses the product, is (preferably) familiar with its
innermost workings and monitors the developments made at its source
level. This may be routine bug fixes or a new release. The maintainer
should consider the upstream developments in the light the fact that
ELRepo provided packages are for users of Enterprise Linux systems and
thus are not updated just to remain at the leading edge. Having made
the decision that the package should be updated, the maintainer would
locally build and test the updated package. Once satisfied, the
updated source package would then be passed to a member of the ELRepo
Administration Team for building, signing and pushing to the
repository.

In the case of this drbd83 package, it would be logical for the
maintainer to make that contact with ELRepo administration via Dag,
the initial package builder.

Dag, Akemi, Phil & Steve -- Please feel free to expand on the above
and fill in anything that I have missed. ;-)

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

Other fellow members of the Admin team -- Once the package maintainer
issue is resolved, will you be willing to support the promotion?

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

Broadly speaking, the maintainer of a package should be a person who
regularly uses the product, is (preferably) familiar with its
innermost workings and monitors the developments made at its source
level. This may be routine bug fixes or a new release. The maintainer
should consider the upstream developments in the light the fact that
ELRepo provided packages are for users of Enterprise Linux systems and
thus are not updated just to remain at the leading edge. Having made
the decision that the package should be updated, the maintainer would
locally build and test the updated package. Once satisfied, the
updated source package would then be passed to a member of the ELRepo
Administration Team for building, signing and pushing to the
repository.

In the case of this drbd83 package, it would be logical for the
maintainer to make that contact with ELRepo administration via Dag,
the initial package builder.

Dag, Akemi, Phil & Steve -- Please feel free to expand on the above
and fill in anything that I have missed. ;-)

Alan / burakkucat.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Joseph L. Casale

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

In view of the above favourable report, I am willing to agree to the
package's promotion from the testing to the main repository.

Dag -- Will you be willing to maintain the package?

Other fellow members of the Admin team -- Once the package maintainer
issue is resolved, will you be willing to support the promotion?

Alan / burakkucat.

[Fabian Arrotin]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,

Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

[Fabian Arrotin]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,

Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

[Fabian Arrotin]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,

Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

[Fabian Arrotin]

Post by Alan Bartlett

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)
Alan.

Hi All,

Just curious : are there any reasons why it would have to compete with
the packages from CentOS Extras ? and what are the differences (if any)
between those two packages ?

[Joseph L. Casale]

Post by Alan Bartlett
(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?

As stated, I have been running them since Dag made them available, Mid June.
The pair of nodes I use them on see plenty of traffic every day and migrate
between each other often as part of normal use w/o issue.

Post by Alan Bartlett
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

What are the responsibilities of the maintainer, maybe net those out
so those whom are capable can gauge whether they want to step up.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? ?http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

O.k. folks, a few questions:

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

Alan.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? ?http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

O.k. folks, a few questions:

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

Alan.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? ?http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

O.k. folks, a few questions:

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

Alan.

[Alan Bartlett]

Post by Dag Wieers

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at
? ?http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have my
vote as well ;-)

O.k. folks, a few questions:

(1) When was the package first made publicly available by us (the
ELRepo Project)?
(2) Any advances on two satisfied users (JLC, DW)?
(3) Has the package been tested to destruction on a sacrificial / test system?
(4) Any quirks / oddities, etc, noticed?
(5) Do we have a maintainer for that package, as distinct from the
builder of the package? The maintainer will have to be a person who
uses it daily / regularly and understands it. (That rules *me* out.)

Alan.

[Joseph L. Casale]

Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

Thanks!
jlc

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at

http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo

I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have
my vote as well ;-)

[Joseph L. Casale]

Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

Thanks!
jlc

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at

http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo

I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have
my vote as well ;-)

[Joseph L. Casale]

Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

Thanks!
jlc

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at

http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo

I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have
my vote as well ;-)

[Joseph L. Casale]

Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

Thanks!
jlc

[Dag Wieers]

Post by Joseph L. Casale
Any plans to move this out of testing? I have been running it since
creation in production without hiccup.

The kmod-drbd83 package is part of the ELRepo project, so I forwarded this
discussion to the ELRepo mailinglist at

http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo

I do think we have to promote this to the stable repository. So you have
my vote as well ;-)