Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:20:19 -0600 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd2008@kiwi-computer.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: <20081213172019.GA96721@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <46367482@bb.ipt.ru> References: <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> <C189502E01D49971EB598087@girgBook.local> <46367482@bb.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 06:17:25PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > Personally I thinks that is overly complicated. Installing a few > > binaries that I don't use is not a big deal. Having three ports for a > > server+client system is confusing, especially since it is not very > > common practice. I'd vote for one single port, with rc switches to > > activate the different parts. > > Anyway we can't create packages since kernel sources and objs are > needed. Then really it's worth having only one port. The default > net/openafs installs both server and client. While OPENAFS_SERVER_ONLY > and OPENAFS_CLIENT_ONLY do what they should. I like the single-port idea the best, and use the OPENAFS_*_ONLY variables to disable one half. I agree with others that three ports is unnecessarily complicated. Unless there's really a technical reason to separate ports that can't be worked around, I vote: one port. Thank you for your efforts! -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081213172019.GA96721>