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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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=3D"YES" and = openafs_server_enable=3D"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, Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A22DDF0293864B03AD8FE957D5EB5316>