#432 mod_cluster EPEL package conflict with product
Closed: Fixed None Opened 7 years ago by goldmann.

Hi all,

Recently I was informed that there is an issue with the package naming of mod_cluster. We provide an RPM called mod_cluster in the JBoss EAP channel (jbappplatform-6-x86_64-server-6-rpm), a package with the same name is provided by EPEL too. I'm the maintainer in EPEL.

When someone installs EPEL and EAP 6 repos on the same machine - they'll end up with a conflict. These package do not provide the same functionality. The one from EPEL is providing server side (java) part of mod_cluster, whereas the EPEL one provides the HTTPD (Apache modules) part of mod_cluster.

More information about mod_cluster: http://mod-cluster.jboss.org/

I would like to ask FPC for an advice on how we can solve this issue. When we rename the one in EPEL and provide Obsoletes - the issue still will be there.



The product channel provides a mod_cluster-native package which essentially ships supported native modules. Currently these modules are part of +mod_cluster+ EPEL package.

I'm thinking about building a mod_cluster-native subpackage from the mod_cluster repo to match the production. This would contain what's currently available in mod_cluster EPEL package. If we decide to ship also the Java version of mod_cluster, these files would be part of mod_cluster package. This would reflect what we have in products. The only difference for the end user is that if he installs mod_cluster he'll not end up with the native part but with the java part, which may be confusing for some.


This is basically what I was going to recommend. Could you send me the spec file for RHEL package from EAP repo (along with any patches)? I'd like to compare that to what's in EPEL before making any final recommendations.

I finally reviewed both EPEL6's mod_cluster and RHEL6 JBEAP mod_cluster and mod_cluster-native. As per EPEL policy, please keep EPEL package in-line with what's in RHEL6. This means producing -native subpackage from the current EPEL package. I would add a note to README.Fedora and package description as well. You can consider adding the SELinux policy from RHEL package.

Login to comment on this ticket.