Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:27:09 +1000 From: "Tony Jago" <tony@convoitec.com> To: "Derrick Brashear" <shadow@gmail.com>, <rick-freebsd2008@kiwi-computer.com> Cc: freebsd-afs@freebsd.org, "Jason C. Wells" <jcw@highperformance.net>, Alec Kloss <alec@setfilepointer.com> Subject: OpenAFS port [was: OpenAFS on FreeBSD Progress (Works)] Message-ID: <A22DDF0293864B03AD8FE957D5EB5316@valentine> In-Reply-To: <db6e3f110812121706i2b022e0bh3ff7413086c73dc1@mail.gmail.com> 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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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. My 2 cents, Tonyhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A22DDF0293864B03AD8FE957D5EB5316>