[Cluster-devel] Heads-up: retiring gfs_controld

[Cluster-devel] Heads-up: retiring gfs_controld

[Andrew Price]

Hi,

Now that Fedora 16 has EOL'd we have little reason to keep gfs_controld 
and gfs_control in gfs2-utils. They're currently disabled by default but 
can be enabled with configure option --enable-gfs_controld which adds 
additional dependencies on corosynclib, clusterlib (discontinued) and 
openaislib (discontinued).

My intention is to remove gfs_control* from gfs2-utils.git before the 
next release unless there are any good reasons to keep them around.

Andy

[Cluster-devel] Heads-up: retiring gfs_controld

[Fabio M. Di Nitto]

On 02/15/2013 02:18 PM, Andrew Price wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Now that Fedora 16 has EOL'd we have little reason to keep gfs_controld
> and gfs_control in gfs2-utils. They're currently disabled by default but
> can be enabled with configure option --enable-gfs_controld which adds
> additional dependencies on corosynclib, clusterlib (discontinued) and
> openaislib (discontinued).
> 
> My intention is to remove gfs_control* from gfs2-utils.git before the
> next release unless there are any good reasons to keep them around.
> 
> Andy
> 

Just make sure it is clear from which exact kernel version it is
possible to operate without gfs_control*. so that maintainers will not
try to backport to linux 1.0.

Fabio

[Cluster-devel] Heads-up: retiring gfs_controld

[Andrew Price]

On 16/02/13 16:35, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
> On 02/15/2013 02:18 PM, Andrew Price wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now that Fedora 16 has EOL'd we have little reason to keep gfs_controld
>> and gfs_control in gfs2-utils. They're currently disabled by default but
>> can be enabled with configure option --enable-gfs_controld which adds
>> additional dependencies on corosynclib, clusterlib (discontinued) and
>> openaislib (discontinued).
>>
>> My intention is to remove gfs_control* from gfs2-utils.git before the
>> next release unless there are any good reasons to keep them around.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
> Just make sure it is clear from which exact kernel version it is
> possible to operate without gfs_control*. so that maintainers will not
> try to backport to linux 1.0.
>
> Fabio

I'd have to get confirmation on this but it looks like this commit 
obsoleted gfs_controld:

    commit e0c2a9aa1e68455dc3439e95d85cabcaff073666
    Author: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
    Date:   Mon Jan 9 17:18:05 2012 -0500

        GFS2: dlm based recovery coordination

        This new method of managing recovery is an alternative to
        the previous approach of using the userland gfs_controld.
    [...]

Which was released in:

    $ git describe --contains e0c2a9aa1e68455dc3439e95d85cabcaff073666
    v3.3-rc1~77^2~4

So a little while after linux 1.0 :)

Andy