On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Ray Van Dolson<rayvd(a)bludgeon.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 05:06:11PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 11:53:29PM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> > > Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > I've stayed on the nagios 2.x tree long enough, anyone opposed to
> > > > updating to 3.1.2 in EPEL?
> > > >
> > > Last time this was discussed, the plan was to keep nagios at 2.x and
> > > introduce a parallel installable nagios3. iirc, there's no automagic
> > > to go from a nagios 2.x to a nagios 3.x conf, so the update wouldn't
> > > transparent. And a major version bump would be against the RHEL/EPEL
> > > policy anyway, unless special circumstances (security fix that cannot be
> > > backported...)
> > >
> > If nagios3 is introduced, will the original nagios package be orphaned
> > or will Mike or someone else continue maintaining it?
> I wouldn't be maintaining it. I'm not even sure if upstream is
> maintaining it anymore, it's been over a year since the last release and
> from their downloads page they seem to be steering people towards the 3.x
If it's dead upstream, seems like adequate "special circumstances" to
replace the older one.
Although maybe it's "friendlier" to go the nagios3 route and then
retire nagios later once people have a chance to migrate?
Yes I think we should cover this int he next EPEL meeting. There are
several apps which do not cleanly update (moin, nagios, some
mediawiki). Coming up with a methodology for dealing with these
properly would help other package people.
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"