On 15/05/12 13:32, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Trevor Hemsley <thems...@voiceflex.com> > wrote: >> On 15/05/12 05:24, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Larry Brigman <larry.brig...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Larry Brigman <larry.brig...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I must be coming to the party late. I just noticed that 1.1.7 version >>>>>> of pacemaker is out. >>>>>> We are running 1.1.5 on centos5 and would like to upgrade to 1.1.7 but I >>>>>> am not finding the rpm. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that not getting built and pushed to rpm-next/epel5 tree any more? >>>>>> Is there plans to do build it? >>>>> I believe glib on epel5 is too old to build 1.1.7 there. >>>>> Is there something preventing you from using a rhel-6 derivative? >>>> Existing applications, tools and libraries that have not been tested on >>>> RHEL-6, >>>> plus multiple systems needing to be upgraded to RHEL-6 from RHEL-5 that >>>> has yet to be tested. >>> Ok. >>> >>> If there is sufficient interest (as gauged by >>> http://beekhof.polldaddy.com/s/rhel-versions ), I will re-activate the >>> epel-5 repo and include a more recent version of glib2. >>> Please get the word out :-) >> Wouldn't it be better to fix the code to not use this function rather >> than update a core el5 package? >> >> > No. > The function has value, otherwise it wouldn't have been added to GLib > nor would we be using it. > > Preventing progress in an upstream project because someone, somewhere, > is running a VAX isn't a tenable position. I ask because I have successfully patched other projects that thought they needed to use this same glib API call to work with a different and almost identical call. It requires about 6 extra lines of code and is not that much more complicated. Yes, the one you are using is simpler and more direct but RHEL5 still has 5 years of life left in it and abandoning it because of this one call seems a little premature. Supplying a replacement core package is also not ideal given how many other packages depend on this particular one.
Will you take a patch if I can find the time to produce one? _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
