On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:36 -0500, Greg Swift wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:29:26 +0200 Fabrice Salvaire f.salvaire@genomicvision.com wrote:
Dear all,
I upgraded the Zabbix package to the upstream version 2.0.2. It seems to work fine, except I don't tested everything.
Thus I have the SRPM with the update for the spec file and some of the sources files. How can I provide it to EPEL ?
File a bug against the epel Zabbix package and the maintainer can review and apply your patches.
its actually a touch more complex to that unless things have changed. The EPEL guidelines [1] state that major version updates are to be avoided with a goal of 'yum update' just working.
I recently joined Dan Horak (sharkcz) in the work towards a 2.0 package for Fedora and EPEL.
It's pretty complex indeed. We're switching to two users to keep agent and proxy/server isolated better. We also switched to Debian Alternatives to choose between database implementations and have no conflicting sub-packages. The draft is suitable for systemd and init scripts -- having all necessary conditionals in place and hopefully ending the existence of 4 different branches.
I published a draft. I hope Dan can take a look at it soon. Anybody's comment is highly appreciated.
http://www.geofrogger.net/review/z2/zabbix20-2.0.2-3.el6.src.rpm http://www.geofrogger.net/review/z2/zabbix.Fedora is a README, that will become part of the package.
I'm not sure how big of a difference 1.8 -> 2.0, but 1.6 -> 1.8 was different enough. Currently EPEL5 has 1.6 release of zabbix and EPEL6 has 1.8 release. This has been talked about several times on list and I don't know that anyone came up with a good resolution.
You definitely need to run a database upgrade. Since proxies and servers must run the same major version, it'd be a good idea to also have it in EPEL 5.
One of the options was to change the package name and host both releases in EPEL. I'm not sure how often this actually happens, or what the path to get there would be.
That's the approach we took. zabbix20 conflicts with zabbix. Zabbix has a good stable-policy, so relevant changes would only appear on major x.y releases. They're aiming for regular major releases every 9 months from now on.
Volker Fröhlich
I asked about this with 1.8 on rhel5 and got the above response, so I thought I'd share. That being said, take this as info not a reason to stop :) I'm all for someone figuring out a way forward.
-greg
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#A_major_version_upd...
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list