On Sep 26, 2012, at 21:03 , Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > Based on my understanding, this is a business strategy of Red Hat > to get big customers, and third-party non-GPL software vendors to > get them to sign big money service and support contracts for RHEL. > > OpenAFS falls into the 'third party non-GPL software' category. > > It's completely clear to me why it doesn't work... that's because > subtle breakage of the 'stable' interface by anything linking into > the linux kernel is in the best interest of everyone who is employed > by Red Hat writing and patching the kernel. Red Hat employees will > say they are 'committed to providing stable interfaces' publicly, > and what you'll see in practice is something else entirely. > > Kind of like the commitments I keep hearing about people make on > this mailing list.
I disagree with, well, everything said above. > We can either keep recompiling, pay big money, or use the Red Hat > developed kAFS. Another option would be to make the OpenAFS FUSE client fully functional. Any serious obstacles to that? What would it take? - Stephan > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 01:45:44PM -0500, Andrew Deason wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:38:31 -0500 >> Troy Benjegerdes <ho...@hozed.org> wrote: >> >>> 2) RHEL defines which kabi functions are 'stable' >> >> I'm not sure if you understand what Ken is talking about. As far as I >> can tell, Red Hat's intent is that this is supposed to still work even >> for things that do not stick to any "stable" whitelist of functions (for >> RHEL6 and beyond). So if something not "stable" changes, the kernel will >> recognize that the relevant kernel module is not compatible, and you >> need to recompile the thing. So we're not supposed to need to stick to a >> stable ABI. >> >> But as the thread that Ken linked shows, it doesn't seem to work. We're >> not sure why it doesn't work for that particular case, and Red Hat's new >> kernel patching policies make it difficult to figure out. I think it's >> hard to say how often that will reoccur without knowing what actually >> broke. >> >> It's of course safer to just recompile for any version change, but if >> that were acceptable to everyone I expect this kabi stuff wouldn't exist >> in the first place. I personally don't find it "worth it" to try and >> figure this out at the moment, but I've treated Linux's lack of >> interface stability/design as something to just 'live with' for awhile, >> so it doesn't bother me so much. -- Stephan Wiesand DESY -DV- Platanenenallee 6 15738 Zeuthen, Germany _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
