Bug 1140366
| Summary: | redis EPEL6 version is old | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Bill Nottingham <notting> |
| Component: | redis | Assignee: | Nathan Scott <nathans> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | el6 | CC: | brubisch, carl, i, jlaska, julien, nathans, reddot.rocks, ruben, silas, tuurtnt |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | redis-3.2.10-2.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-09-04 17:48:26 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Bill Nottingham
2014-09-10 18:40:07 UTC
I've successfully built 2.8.14-2 on el6 without issue. Any chance we can update redis on el6? (In reply to James Laska from comment #1) > I've successfully built 2.8.14-2 on el6 without issue. Any chance we can > update redis on el6? Also installed and running 2.8.14-2 on el6. No major issues so far. One alternative solution is to use the redis28u or redis30u packages provided by the IUS project [1]. These packages have the following properties. * conflict with redis from EPEL * use an alternate name so that the redis package doesn't get an unexpected major version update * provide the latest upstream supported versions (currently 2.8.24 and 3.0.7) [1]: https://ius.io It seems this package has changed ownership in the meantime. Flavio, any change you can have a look? Is there any news? If anyone needs this, I've produced a COPR with a more recent version (3.2.10 currently) for el6 and el7 here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nathans/redis3/ redis-3.2.10-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0ad4c424f0 *** Bug 853029 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** redis-3.2.10-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0ad4c424f0 redis-3.2.10-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. This is not a trivial update, a lot has changed in redis between these versions... so this breaks existing redis intallations. I had the problem this weekend on a production server, after update, redis was broken. Shouldn't EPEL stable be... stable ? Hi Julien, The comments here may help solve the failure you're observing: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0ad4c424f0 And yes, this was unintentional fallout - my apologies there. cheers. Hi, Souldn't the update be reverted ? It is very likely that it will break other installations soon. Maybe revert the package to 2.4.10 and add maybe a redis3 package ? Maybe. Its a tough call IMO - one problem is this would revert important security fixes ... :( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#A_major_version_update This seems to indicate the change should not have happened, therefore a rollback should be the correct way, or am I mistaken ? Hi Julien, > This seems to indicate the change should not have happened +1; there is no question on that and as I said it was some unanticipated fallout from the security update. I believe the damage is, unfortunately, done - the horse has bolted. > therefore a rollback should be the correct way That action does not seem to be indicated anywhere in that document and its not clear that it will help at this stage. It is also not a desirable outcome for those who want the security fixes of course, which I'd presume is the silent majority of users here. cheers. |