OpenAFS port

[Palle Girgensohn]

--On lördag, lö 13 dec 2008 16.19.40 +0300 Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> 
wrote:

> 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!

Personally I thinks that is overly complicated. Installing a few binaries 
that I don't use is not a big deal. Having three ports for a server+client 
system is confusing, especially since it is not very common practice. I'd 
vote for one single port, with rc switches to activate the different parts.

/Palle