On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:41:47 -0800 > "Buhrmaster, Gary" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Right, but if it is part of the initial 1.6 release, I think people >> > will quite a bit more cautious then just replacing binaries anyway >> > since it is a major version change then then a .x update. >> >> Not all the people running openAFS will be as knowledgably >> (even as to the numbering system of a 1.<even>) as the people >> on this list. >> >> Many (linux) packaging systems will just replace older versions >> without a discussion with the installer about what else they >> need to change > > I have faith in at least our resident rpm and deb packagers to give some > notice.
For RedHat, you'd either be upgrading by hand or upgrading your yum repo repository, e.g. "you took action to get here, it didn't just ahppen" > Also, downstream packagers can automate changing BosConfig to > reflect a DAFS configuration, if they decide that the upgrade path > should move to DAFS transparently. > > People that compile and install the binaries themselves ideally are a > little more aware of what's going on (otherwise, why would they > upgrade?). And you don't need to know about the even/odd numbering > scheme, just that the 4 in 1.4 hasn't changed in a while. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
