Bug 829101

Summary:	rpm names conflict with rpms already in fedora/epel
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Gluster Storage	Reporter:	Kaleb KEITHLEY <kkeithle>
Component:	build	Assignee:	Amar Tumballi <amarts>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Sudhir D <sdharane>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	2.0	CC:	gluster-bugs, vinaraya, vraman
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-06-25 01:10:59 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:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	817967

Description Kaleb KEITHLEY 2012-06-06 01:35:26 UTC

Description of problem: Red Hat customers who enable the RHS Channel and EPEL have two conflicting sources of glusterfs.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): All


How reproducible: Enable both RHS Channel and EPEL and do a YUM update or use the GUI to update the software.


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info: RHS rpm packages should use a name other than glusterfs*, e.g. rhs*

Comment 3 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2012-06-06 04:10:02 UTC

RHS rpm packages should use a name other than glusterfs*, e.g. rhs-glusterfs*

Comment 4 Amar Tumballi 2012-06-22 00:23:25 UTC

Kaleb/Vijay/Avati,

Do we need a RPM spec change now (well, we are not clear of a better name as of now)? Sayan, how critical is it for release? how does this works for other packages in RHEL / Fedora model?

Comment 5 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2012-06-22 11:55:47 UTC

There have been a (small) number of complaints from the Fedora/EPEL community WRT the overlap.

I suggest that the RHS version of the glusterfs packages be renamed to rhs-glusterfs* to disambiguate RHS RPMs from community gluster RPMs.

The sooner this happens, the better, IMO.

And yes, it requires that the RPM spec be renamed, e.g. to rhs-glusterfs.spec(.in).

You've also got different versioning. The RHS RPM should, IMO, be version 2.0 for the upcoming release. This is another reason for changing the name, so as to minimize confusion. We do not want glusterfs-3.3.0 in Fedora/EPEL repos and glusterfs-2.0.0 in RHEL Storage Channel. 

I suspect that there will still be confusion, but rhs-glusterfs-2.0.0-1.el6.rpm in the RHEL Storage channel and glusterfs-3.2.7-1.el6.rpm in Fedora/EPEL will be less confusing than what we have today

Comment 6 Vidya Sakar 2012-06-25 01:10:59 UTC

Package rename not required, closing the bug.

Comment 7 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2012-06-29 15:58:48 UTC

RPM names in RHS 2.0 are glusterfs*-3.3.0-xx.el6rhs.x86_64.
                                             ^^^^^^

A perfectly acceptable solution, if I'm not mistaken. Why nobody mentioned it sooner is a mystery.