Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:24:39 -0500 From: "Derrick Brashear" <shadow@gmail.com> 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> Subject: Re: OpenAFS port Message-ID: <db6e3f110812130724p105ac704p4f3b03f21787d9d5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <60600083@bb.ipt.ru> References: <493ACAC4.5020806@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
I don't believe there are conflicts between client objects, and server objects. An independent client and server port should be possible. But if not, why a metaport and not say openafs-base that both client and server depend on? On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> 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="YES" and openafs_server_enable="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! > > > WBR > -- > Boris Samorodov (bsam) > Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP > FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve > -- Derrick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?db6e3f110812130724p105ac704p4f3b03f21787d9d5>