* David Werner wrote: > I wonder why they did not support OpenAFS as "product" is much longer > available in pretty good working state on the market.
Well, at least in Debian and ScientificLinux OpenAFS is available. For others i don't know. > Maybe licensing issues or dislikeness of stable binary interfaces > of the the kernel-developers? What does the folklore say? The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK That seems to be whole reason. Once i have read that there was a plan to create a kernel module which could have a compatible license, so the kernel module could be included in the mainline kernel, but never heard of that idea again. I guess man power ... > To the conservative admin it is clear that something which supports > the distributor is in favour to something where one has to put up > own work to get it running. So I now have to argue against my > colleagues which say with every patched version of kernel one has to build > up afs again, which seems to be true. As one poster stated already, you might have to rebuild the kernel module. But that can easily be captured in a rpm/deb script. At least with rpm you could use a trigger script for that. On the other side using bleeding edge NFSv4 code might not be the most exciting thing for a conservative sysadmin btw ... cheers --lars _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
