On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > But it seems like a disruptive change without a lot of benefit to me. I > suppose if we defined the default sysname as the list amd64_linux > amd64_linux26, it wouldn't be that disruptive, but it might still be > surprising (and would change the results of sys, which some sites may be > using).
I would support the decision to use an unversioned $arch_linux, with a fallback to $arch_linux26. > The easier solution would probably be to update our installation > documentation to encourage anyone installing AFS who is using it to run > software set the sysname to something that makes sense for their > environment. Would it be feasible to make this change effective in a major version release, say, OpenAFS 2.0? Speaking as a user of OpenAFS, the list of things that must be manually configured has such a high learning curve to newbies that choosing a useful, modern default would be great. I know it's trivial to change these sorts of settings locally when you have a fully-managed environment with something like CFEngine or Puppet, and those tools are really awesome. At my site, my team doesn't have that level of control on all our clients, and a large configuration management solution is pretty intimidating to set up anyways :-) So I'm hoping that we can get something upstream, even if we have to wait till an acceptable time (like 2.0). - Ken _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
