Bug 2115785
| Summary: | glusterfs-api-devel package missing | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Reporter: | Frank Büttner <bugzilla> |
| Component: | glusterfs | Assignee: | Sunil Kumar Acharya <sheggodu> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Vivek Das <vdas> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | CentOS Stream | CC: | andreas.rogge, bstinson, jwboyer, sheggodu |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-07-23 07:31:14 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
Frank Büttner
2022-08-05 11:27:04 UTC
Closing this as NOTABUG without providing any further information is pretty awful. With the information you provided I can only figure that glusterfs API is considered to be a private Red Hat API that should not be used by end-users and partners. As a result we would have to cease support for glusterfs in our product, because you decided to make it impossible to use. Why is is not a bug? What are our alternatives as a Red Hat partner to build our code? Should we consider GlusterFS deprecated? Thank you! (In reply to Andreas Rogge from comment #4) > Closing this as NOTABUG without providing any further information is pretty > awful. > > With the information you provided I can only figure that glusterfs API is > considered to be a private Red Hat API that should not be used by end-users > and partners. > As a result we would have to cease support for glusterfs in our product, > because you decided to make it impossible to use. > > Why is is not a bug? What are our alternatives as a Red Hat partner to build > our code? Should we consider GlusterFS deprecated? > > Thank you! The BZ was closed as nothing was heard back on the requested data for more than 4 months! Just in case you have not observed due to permission issues, re-posting the comment: "Hi Frank. Could you please elaborate how/where you're detecting it? Im asking as 'glusterfs-api-devel-6.0-57.4.el9.x86_64.rpm' got generated for build glusterfs-6.0-57.4.el9:" I'm pretty sure that RPM is built. It just didn't make it to any repository. When running a container using podman run --rm -it registry.redhat.io/ubi9/ubi And then inside that container running dnf config-manager --enable codeready-builder-for-rhel-9-x86_64-rpms dnf list glusterfs-* I see no matching packages and I cannot find any other repository that contains that package. If I do the same with RHEL 8 it works flawlessly. So either I cannot find the magic repository that the glusterfs devel packages are published to or they aren't published at all. I cannot find the devel packages in any CentOS Stream repository either, so I guess the packages are filtered out somehow. I hope that's enough information to get you started. Just ping me if you need anything else! Thank you! After evaluating this issue, there are no plans to address it further or fix it in an upcoming release. Therefore, it is being closed. If plans change such that this issue will be fixed in an upcoming release, then the bug can be reopened. Thank you for the feedback. We'll drop GlusterFS support from our product on RHEL. |