OpenAFS port

[Boris Samorodov]

Palle Girgensohn <girgen at pingpong.net> writes:
> 13 dec 2008 kl. 03.27 skrev "Tony Jago" <tony at 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