Derek Atkins wrote: >Christopher Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>There's been a lot of discussion at my company regarding which direction >>we are planning on >>going now that RedHat has announced it's new enterprise business >>initiatives in the coming year. >>I was just curious as to whether or not there are plans to support the >>Fedora project or >>RH enterprise version 3 or both. Just trying to get a feel for what >>impact to upgrades we might >>expect running OpenAFS on redhat linux. >> >> > >Are you asking about OpenAFS source compatibility or Binary RPM >Distribution If the former, please stop reading now, I'm only going to >talk about the latter (being the RPM maintainer). > > I was asking generally about both package management and source compatibility. According to RedHat's website they're planning only 1 release per year of RHEL and 3 releases per year of Fedora. I just wanted to get a general idea of how much things *really* will change between the two and how the developers feel about supporting two release cycles where there was once one. I guess, as you wisely suggested, we'll have to take a 'wait and see' attitude for a release or two of each. Thanks for replying! -- Christopher Arnold Systems Administrator E-Mail: Chris at Pictage.com Pictage, Inc. USA Tel: (310) 525-1629 >Honestly, I dont know what I'm planning to do in terms of RPM builds. >Previously I've only build RPMS for the official RHL releases and then >tried to keep up with updated kernels. Each OpenAFS release usually >takes me about 48 hours to complete all the builds. OTOH, from the >patches being sent in by some Red Hat people it's possible they may >plan to distribute OpenAFS themselves, but I don't know for sure. > >Personally, I dont know which releases to actually try to support >anymore. It takes about 5GB per release to maintain the vmware >installation where I do the builds (of which I've got about 25G free, >IIRC). In the past I decided not to support beta releases, but with >Fedora I'm just confused about what constitutes a "release" anymore. > >Frankly, I dont have the time to build against every "potential" >release -- I want to focus on "real" releases. So, I've pretty much >been waiting to see how this all plays out. > >I should point out that the SRPM will build just fine on RHEL-3.0 with >a minor change to disable the builds for i386 (and maybe i586) >processors. > >-derek > > > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
