On 04/02/14 12:06, Alastair Dewhurst wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Dave Dykstra (and Jakob Bloomer for CVMFS) are trying to get the Frontier squid package added to the UMD release. The Frontier squid package has for a long time been part of the OSG release. A GGUS ticket was created:
> https://ggus.eu/ws/ticket_info.php?ticket=93621
>
> Dave has expressed his 'frustration at EGI bureaucracy' and asked me if I knew any way to progress the item. I was wondering if anybody on TB support has had experienced of getting packages added to official releases or something similar and could offer advice. Even if the advice is "Give up" it would at least resolve the ticket.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Alastair
>
> P.S. I assume it would be beneficial to sites if there was an official squid release that worked with both Frontier and CVMFS and was kept up to date?
It would be beneficial. At the moment if there's a security issue I rely
it being reported via the security list, or on the experiment telling me.
Most beneficial actually would be to get the fixes upstream (into SL -
which means getting them into RHEL for squid - so get testing that RHEL7
beta).
If a package isn't in a repository it won't get updated. If it is in
lots of repositories, you end end up with conflicting packages - and
dependencies that can't be satisfied.
Repositories you might choose include epel - though that's only for
things that don't conflict with RHEL - which rules out squid I think.
WLCG is also hosting a repository - which might be the right place
(that repo gets mentioned in the minutes of
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/MiddlewareReadiness ).
There's also IIRC an SL add on repo - for things like AFS that aren't
part of RHEL.
Long term, making this just config for a standard squid would be the
right thing to do.
Chris
|