Centos 5 / RHEL 5 Support

[sous-chefs]

Centos 5 / RHEL 5 Support

[karmi]

@athiele Sorry for the delayed reply. The cookbook's Vagrantfile comes with support for CentOS 6.3, and it is tested on this version frequently. Can you provide more info about your configuration and what fails?

[karmi]

Closing for now, feel free to ping me here if you need more help/info.

[athiele]

The Problem occurs with CentOS 5. The RPM seems to be incompatible with RHEL5-like OSes.

[karmi]

@athiele But which rpm? Can you provide some full dump from the Vagrant run, so anybody interested can pick it up and attempt to fix it?

[athiele]

@karmi OK, I have to clarify my request: I just want to know if there is a proven way of installing Elasticsearch on CentOS 5 / RHEL 5. As it is not included in this cookbook by default, maybe this is a feature worth thinking of?
In my special case I used a manually packaged RPM that did not work with RHEL5 because of some lib-dependencies - thus a selfmade problem.

So, my point is that supporting RHEL 5 / CentOS 5 in this cookbook could be a nice enhancement.

[karmi]

Ah, I see. This cookbook does not use the deb/rpm packages, it downloads the .tar.gz, extracts, etc. It should be compatible with CentOS 5.

You have to submit the issue in the elasticsearch/elasticsearch repository.

Cc: @spinscale

[spinscale]

@athiele I am happy to help to change the RPM package to support non-bleeding edge versions of distributions.

Please create an issue in the https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch repo as karmi said, in case you used the official RPM. Also specify your exact centos version and the error message (installing the 0.90.0 RPM worked for me on centos 5.9, but maybe I am missing something else).

[athiele]

@spinscale I did not use an official RPM, so our build script is to blame for this error. As I assume that the official RPM works on RHEL 5 machines, there is no need for an issue in the elasticsearch repo, right?

[spinscale]

my bad, overread that fact. No need for the issue in that case. Thanks for clarifying!