On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Trevor Hemsley <thems...@voiceflex.com> wrote: > 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
5 years seems a bit long, but I can't confirm that right now. On the flip side, your version of glib dates back to RHEL4 which makes it nearly 6 years old. > 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? Sure. Someone tried already IIRC, perhaps it just needs to be updated. _______________________________________________ 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
