openafs port(s) in general

[Derrick Brashear]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> wrote:

> "Derrick Brashear" <shadow at gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru> wrote:
> >> "Derrick Brashear" <shadow at gmail.com> writes:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Boris Samorodov <bsam at ipt.ru>
> wrote:
> >> >> "Derrick Brashear" <shadow at gmail.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > i could edit the web page in question if it'd help ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, please.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, it's the wrong solution to the problem.
> >> >
> >> > Why are you using *that* web page as the be-all-end-all division of
> >> > commands?
> >>
> >> Because there is no better solution. Do you have one?
> >
> > I gave you a list which got ignored, like 4 hours ago.
>
> Why do you think your list got ignored? ;-) I've been working with it.
> Then that was an opinion of one person. Nobody voted for it.
>
> > Editing this web page
> > to put the same list in it is any better why?
>
> Your mail is your personal opinion.


No. My mail reflects how OpenAFS works when you type "make install", which
is at least as official as:


> That site is (or am I mistaken?)
> an official place where to look for information.


It is. That I can edit the page (which, again, has nothing to do with where
the commands get installed, but reflects only man subdirectories) suggests
either my opinion has some bearing, or that I am clever and apply the policy
OpenAFS has shaped to my work. I'd like to think it's the latter.


>
> You know, I could have committed the (openafs) port since I got it
> build/install/deinstall succesfully. But I'd better don't do it.
> And discuss a better ways/decisions/etc. at this list. Because
> since the port gets committed it should reflect official position
> of those who *can* make decisions: developers, admins, power users.
> And because it will be (very) hard and/or painful to change the port
> (it's infrastructure, directory layout) later.
>

I agree. Better to get it right, now, before people are depending on it.

>
> One thing to say something while other to do it. Changes to that page (I
> think) should have been discussed and/or approved by some community. If
> those changes appear that may influence not only a FreeBSD port.
>

 See above. And let me try again to state what seems to be going over your
head.

That page has nothing to do with what the commands are for. It reflects
which man pages are in man1 ("User commands") and which are in man8
("Administrative commands")

That's it. It's not policy, or any such other thing.