[Sorry for delayed response; I was travelling.]
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Andrew Deason wrote:
The *BSDs have their ports, and we are using that for FreeBSD. I'm
honestly not sure why we are not relying on that for binaries.
We can get somewhat faster availability of binaries by providing our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:29:14 +
Brandon Allbery ballb...@sinenomine.net wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 08:19 -0700, Andrew Deason wrote:
OS X has a few things like fink, macports, and brew, but that would be
an extra big thing you'd have to
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:39:12 -0400
Dave Botsch bot...@cnf.cornell.edu wrote:
IMHO, not offering binaries and telling users to go someplace else is
not perceived as friendly to the users... UNLESS..
Well, this is what some users have asked for. (Maybe not this
specifically, but complaining
On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 08:19 -0700, Andrew Deason wrote:
OS X has a few things like fink, macports, and brew, but that would be
an extra big thing you'd have to install, which is pretty terrible to
ask of users. I also don't know if those work with kernel modules at
all, and some have had some
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:07:06 -0400
Jonathan Billings jsbil...@umich.edu wrote:
Do we want to continue development of the RPM spec file in the OpenAFS
git tree? Split off a RHEL7/Fedora version?
Jeffrey and Stephan have answered this in a couple of different ways,
since think there are a few
Andrew Deason adea...@sinenomine.net writes:
If you're asking will we continue to develop RPM packaging for RHEL7+
in the OpenAFS git tree? then the answer (so far) is no. The idea is
that the development and coordination of the red hat RPM packaging is
done entirely by rpmfusion or some
