On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:36 -0500, Greg Swift wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:29:26 +0200
> > Fabrice Salvaire <email@example.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  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/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
> 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
> 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
I'm all for someone figuring out a way forward.
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#A_major_version_update
> epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list mailing list