Re: OpenAFS port
"Derrick Brashear" <[email protected]> Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:24:39 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.afs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Palle Girgensohn <[email protected]> writes: > > 13 dec 2008 kl. 03.27 skrev "Tony Jago" <[email protected]>: > > > >> 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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-afs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"