Simon-

you are correct, I meant the rpmfusion repository, not the fedora.  Given what 
you've just said, I'll stick with your rpms!

Thanks very much for your informative and detailed responses.

eric

p.s.-  the machine in question is sort of a beta tester for the Notre Dame 
campus in terms of Fedora 12; the official use of Linux is still RHEL5, which I 
find too archaic for our department.  The research computing IT department 
however is interested in my use of Fedora, so I'm reporting to them my 
anecdotes.  I can happily say you have been very helpful.

--- On Mon, 3/15/10, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] multiplt kernel call traces
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, March 15, 2010, 9:29 AM
> 
> On 15 Mar 2010, at 14:08, [email protected]
> wrote:
> > As a follow up to your response- will this problem "go
> away" for kernel version 2.6.33?  If so, perhaps I can
> upgrade to that version.
> 
> It will, yes.
> 
> > As an alternative- can I fix this by downgrading the
> kernel to some lesser version (say 2.6.30)?
> 
> Yes. The problematic code is only in 2.6.31 and 2.6.32. Of
> course, vendors may have backported that code into earlier
> versions (or not taken the fixes, in later versions), but
> that's one of the joys of the way the Linux kernel gets
> distributed.
> 
> > I found I needed pam-afs-session; is the library
> provided in the rpm going to be included in the default
> openafs packages?
> 
> pam-afs-session will always be a standalone package. There
> is an argument that we should possibly include it in our
> repository, but we have yet to do so. OpenAFS 1.5.x does
> have libkopenafs, which is similar to the library that
> pam-afs-session uses, so that will be available with that
> release.
> 
> > Lastly- since I run Fedora, which now provides openafs
> by their own repositories, which repository would you
> recommend- theirs or yours?
> 
> As far as I'm aware, Fedora doesn't package OpenAFS. Fedora
> doesn't accept packages which introduce new kernel modules
> as a matter of policy, so we could never get the OpenAFS
> client into  Fedora itself. I guess it would be
> possible to get the OpenAFS server into Fedora, but
> significant changes would have to happen to the way it's
> package for it to be acceptable to them.
> 
> RPMFusion, on the other hand, does now appear to provide
> OpenAFS packages. These are significantly different from the
> ones that OpenAFS ship, so you need to decide fairly early
> one what you want to support for your site. I've never used
> the RPMfusion packages, nor had much communication with
> their packager, so I can't really comment on them.
> 
> I'd love it if someone else was maintaining the OpenAFS
> RPMs, because it would be one less thing I need to do with
> each release. However, both my site and many others rely on
> the RPMs working the same way from release to release. We
> can't just switch to a set of 3rd party RPMs at the drop of
> a hat, and I think it's a real shame that the people doing
> third party RPM packaging never seem to come and talk to use
> before doing so.
> 
> Given that we don't actually have contacts for 3rd party
> packagers, it's also unlikely that we'll be able to tell
> them about impending security fixes, or patches that are
> necessary for new security releases - so the OpenAFS RPMs
> are likely to get these before anyone else.
> 
> This leaves the problem of support. If you are using the
> OpenAFS RPMs, then I'm quite likely to know how they were
> built, to have a set of kernel debug images floating around,
> and to be prepared to find the time to debug your problem.
> If you're using third party RPMs, then I'm as likely as not
> to ask you to report your problem to them, and to rule out
> anything to do with the way they've configured their builds,
> and their build system, before I'll take a look at it.
> 
> So, for all of those reasons, I'd recommend using the
> OpenAFS rpms. Not that the rpmfusion ones are necessarily
> bad, in any way, it's just that it's much easier for the
> community to help you if you're using RPMs that we know the
> origin of.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon.
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info

Reply via email to