Andrew Deason 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. 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.
I'm more comfortable with an rpm/deb that converts Bosconfig as part of
the pre-install routine.
Would it be advantageous to have boserver read multiple files so that
you could have a dbserver and a fileserver packages and those package
would just insert the right config?
Thanks,
Jason
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
