From owner-freebsd-afs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 13 13:19:47 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-afs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB451106564A for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from services.ipt.ru (services.ipt.ru [194.62.233.110]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5943D8FC18 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:19:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from bb.ipt.ru ([194.62.233.89]) by services.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1LBUPF-0000va-GI; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:19:41 +0300 To: Palle Girgensohn References: <493ACAC4.5020806@linuxbox.com> <12501719@bb.ipt.ru> <493D898C.1030609@linuxbox.com> <22B6C509EF7C4AB0A2D8350C31BB8D5D@valentine> <57098597@bb.ipt.ru> <26695644@bb.ipt.ru> <20081213004251.GA88954@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <42451957-717C-4CA3-97D9-E2ACABE55E34@pingpong.net> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:19:40 +0300 In-Reply-To: <42451957-717C-4CA3-97D9-E2ACABE55E34@pingpong.net> (Palle Girgensohn's message of "Sat\, 13 Dec 2008 11\:26\:03 +0100") Message-ID: <60600083@bb.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Tony Jago , Alec Kloss , "" , "Jason C. Wells" , Derrick Brashear Subject: Re: OpenAFS port X-BeenThere: freebsd-afs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: The Andrew File System and FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:19:47 -0000 Palle Girgensohn writes: > 13 dec 2008 kl. 03.27 skrev "Tony Jago" : > >> 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