Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> writes: > On 17 Jun 2010, at 21:29, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Steven Jenkins <[email protected]> writes:
>>> I thought that enabling DAFS to be on by default was the major feature >>> of 1.6. >> Shipping DAFS and declaring it supported is the major feature of 1.6. >> Making it the default is another question entirely. > The difficulty here is - what should packagers build? If DAFS isn't on > by default, then most folk won't actually get the benefit of running it > unless they build their own AFS servers. There is that. I intend to ship with DAFS enabled for Debian, but the Debian packages have always taken a fairly aggressive approach to enabling features. (They have had supergroups enabled for quite some time, for example, and also enable UNIX domain sockets for fssync, and I intend to enable disconnected as well.) > I suspect that shipping 1.6 with dafs disabled by default isn't actually > going to result in much perceived change over 1.4. > I wonder how hard it would be to ship both versions of the fileserver > side by side ... I should also say explicitly that "another question entirely" doesn't mean that I'd rule it out completely. I do think it's a bit aggressive, but given the long delay in 1.6, maybe it's time to be aggressive. I just wanted to make clear that having it enabled by default is not the criteria for 1.6 and has not, at least in my mind, ever been the criteria for 1.6. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
