Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:19:40 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> 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: <60600083@bb.ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <42451957-717C-4CA3-97D9-E2ACABE55E34@pingpong.net> (Palle Girgensohn's message of "Sat\, 13 Dec 2008 11\:26\:03 %2B0100") 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?60600083>