[Gluster-devel] Re: gluster patched fuse.

Kevan Benson kbenson at a-1networks.com
Thu Nov 8 17:04:10 UTC 2007

Chris Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Chris Johnson wrote:
>      Ok, I'm a dummy.  I'm just not used to being in the guts of an
> RPM SPEC file.  The gluster patched fuse-2.7.0 is the same as what I
> have, 2.7.0-1.  EXCEPT, there is a patch in the kit I grabbed off Dag
> Wieers Web site.  The patch from there I THINK is swapping out the
> udev.rules line so that only group fuse can do umount on glusterfs
> mounted volumes.

Yeah, the RPM naming scheme is %{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{DIST}, where %{DIST} 
is "1" in your case.  The dist tag is generally used to keep track of 
inter-version changes, such as a change in how the RPM is packages or 
another patch being applied to the virgin sources.

to truly stay with the ideal RPM packaging scheme, ignore my previous 
suggestion of getting the pre-patched version and using it in place of 
the stock fuse, and just get the patch (at the same spot) and apply it 
similarly to the other patch for the udev rules.  Ideally RPMs are made 
from virgin sources with patches applied.  Much easier to upgrade the 
core program and make any minor changes the patches might require that way.

This is for you though, and not general consumption, so do what you feel 
best (trying to make RPM's as kosher as possible can become quite a pain).

>      Upshot is if I put this RPM patch file in the right place I
> susspect I'll be ok and can build an RPM, although I may change the
> release tag to 1a or 1-1 or something.

That's highly advisable, so it's easily determinable what you are running.

>      Anyone know if this sounds like a reasonable approach?

Sounds fine to me.


-Kevan Benson
-A-1 Networks

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list