> On 22 Jun 2015, at 09:40, Andreas Ladanyi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> iam using Centos 7 and openafs 1.6.11.1 from source tarball.
>> In general when a packaged version of something is available, it should
>> be preferred over a source build, since the packaging system tracks which
>> files are installed by the package and should allow for cleaner
>> uninstalls.
>>
>> http://openafs.org/dl/openafs/1.6.11.1/openafs-1.6.11.1-1.src.rpm is the
>> 1.6.11 srpm, which ought to be buildable into binary rpms with, e.g.,
>> mock.
> I used this now, but an yum-builddep of this srpm package tells me that
> the package:
>
> kernel-devel-x86_64 = 2.6.18-404.el5 is needed but not found on centos
> 7. centos 7 ist working with 3.10.
yum-builddep is looking at the wrong info when used on srpms. Install or unpack
the srpm and run "yum-builddep openafs.spec" instead.
> I found out that centos 5 is working with kernel 2.6.18.
Indeed, the srpm was built on en EL5 system.
> But its
> interesting to see that for RHEL 7 there are packages on the openafs
> webseite for release 1.6.8.
That's by accident only. It was decided that packaging OpenAFS has to happen
"downstream" and thus the project should not provide Linux packages for new
major OpenAFS releases (1.8+) or new major distribution releases (F21+, EL7+).
That decision should probably be revisited since the anticipated downstream
packaging for EL7 hasn't happened (AFAIK) and the once existing packaging for
Fedora seems not to have made it past the early days of F20.
Binary packages for those distributions are still being built and can be found
in /afs/inf.ed.ac.uk/group/afsbuild , they're just no longer uploaded. Which
seems kind of silly, given the lack of alternatives.
Best,
Stephan
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
