On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 03:59:53PM +0100, Alan Pevec wrote:
I'd recommend you to subscribe. OpenStack has not declared any long-term-stable release upstream yet, so we'll continue doing updates in EPEL until such release exists.
That seems like a good indication that OpenStack should probably not be in EPEL proper.
We have always believe that the "Enterprise" part of EPEL meant that updates would not cause this sort of disruption in a functioning environment. Frankly, even if we had seen the announcement our only solution would have been to exclude all of the openstack packages from updates; we're simply not in a position to invest the time required to make the jump to Folsom at this time.
If we wanted to be running a bleeding-edge environment with disruptive upgrades we'd be running Fedora instead of a RHEL-derived distribution.
For something moving as rapidly as OpenStack it seems best to either:
(a) Name the packages after the release. Have openstack-essex-nova, openstack-essex-utils, etc., and then introduce openstack-folsom-nova and so forth.
(b) Remove the packages from EPEL proper and place them into release-specific repositories. Someone running the Essex release can track the epel-openstack-essex repository, someone who doesn't mind their entire production environment exploding on a Tuesday morning can track epel-openstack-current.
Either solution would eliminate the sort of problems introduced by the Essex->Folsom upgrade in EPEL, and (a) would have the advantage that it wouldn't require additional repositories.