Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:15:19 +0100 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: Tony Jago <tony@convoitec.com>, Alec Kloss <alec@setfilepointer.com>, "<freebsd-afs@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-afs@freebsd.org>, "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@highperformance.net>, Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> Subject: Re: OpenAFS port Message-ID: <C189502E01D49971EB598087@girgBook.local> In-Reply-To: <60600083@bb.ipt.ru> References: <493ACAC4.5020806@linuxbox.com> <12501719@bb.ipt.ru> <493D898C.1030609@linuxbox.com> <22B6C509EF7C4AB0A2D8350C31BB8D5D@valentine> <57098597@bb.ipt.ru> <26695644@bb.ipt.ru> <DC87E29101195307B372C4F5@c-3157e155.1521-1-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se> <20081213004251.GA88954@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <db6e3f110812121706i2b022e0bh3ff7413086c73dc1@mail.gmail.com> <A22DDF0293864B03AD8FE957D5EB5316@valentine> <42451957-717C-4CA3-97D9-E2ACABE55E34@pingpong.net> <60600083@bb.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On l=F6rdag, l=F6 13 dec 2008 16.19.40 +0300 Boris Samorodov = <bsam@ipt.ru>=20 wrote: > Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> writes: >> 13 dec 2008 kl. 03.27 skrev "Tony Jago" <tony@convoitec.com>: >> >>> I think that we probably don't need more then one port. Yes, I know >>> I was the one what originally proposed the meta port but I have >>> changed my mind :) The reason we had a server and a client port >>> originally was that the server was the only bit working and the >>> kernel model was set not to compile. The client was was arla client. >>> Now that both the openafs server and client are supported by the >>> openafs team I can see no reason why it shouldn't be all in one >>> port. The port should have separate rc variable to allow the >>> administrator to only start the client or the server if they choose >>> to. openafs_client_enable=3D"YES" and openafs_server_enable=3D"YES" for >>> example. This gets around all the conflicting file problems. The >>> kernel module need only be loaded if the client is required. This >>> would seem to be a much easier and cleaner solution. >> >> As long as nothing conflicts with arla, I also suggest an all in one >> installation. Keeps it simple, which is always important. > > I'd vote for that myself if and only if we speak about a ports > subsystem. But there are packages as well. And for those who prefer > using packages I'd rather give an opportunity. > > Said that I propose following ports: > . net/openafs (server+client) > . net/openafs-server; > . net/openafs-client. > > One of them will be a master port (I don't figure out which one, > but that will be either openafs or openafs-server). All of them > will conflict each other, i.e. only one of them can be installed > at a machine. > > That way we may give all users their chance. > > Opinions? Thanks! Personally I thinks that is overly complicated. Installing a few binaries=20 that I don't use is not a big deal. Having three ports for a server+client=20 system is confusing, especially since it is not very common practice. I'd=20 vote for one single port, with rc switches to activate the different parts. /Palle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C189502E01D49971EB598087>