OpenAFS port

[Boris Samorodov]

Palle Girgensohn <girgen at pingpong.net> writes:
> --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

The more I work on the port the more I understand that it's not so
trivial. I've changed my mind too. ;-)

>>>> 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.

Anyway we can't create packages since kernel sources and objs are
needed. Then really it's worth having only one port. The default
net/openafs installs both server and client. While OPENAFS_SERVER_ONLY
and OPENAFS_CLIENT_ONLY do what they should.


WBR
-- 
Boris Samorodov (bsam)
Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP
FreeBSD committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve