Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it's a _good thing_ (tm) that openafs-client depends on the > module (or the source), but the servers shouldn't...
> Having bos (and what not) in a separate package would probably INCREASE > diskspace (AND complicates things) with a couple of megs, but that's not > the problem (for me, it might be for the archive though). > And bos isn't really a _client_ (in machine terms, only in software > design terms) so having that in a separate (OR in the server packages) > package makes more sence... There you could (for the sake of it - making > it 'legit') put the server config files and setup etc... Kind'a a > 'openafs-servers-common' or something... > But on the other hand, having 'bos' on the client (machine), is kind'a > nice. I usually don't need it there, but I guess it can be considered > to be a 'nice feature' (tm :). bos is definitely part of the standard set of client utilities, so I want to continue to provide for clients. I took a closer look at the contents of openafs-client, and more than half of those binaries will work fine in unauthenticated mode without a kernel module installed and are useful in various ways for checking the health of or maintaining the servers. I think it's more trouble than it's worth to try to split the openafs-client package apart. But I don't think it needs to depend on the module, since it does largely work without it and pulling in the source package is kind of annoying. So that will be fixed in the next release that I'm getting ready to upload. (Also, the source package depended on too much other stuff, which will also be fixed.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
