[OpenAFS] 1.1.0 client on RH 7.1

[Rudolph T Maceyko]

Derek,

--On Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:54:18 -0400 Derek Atkins 
<warlord@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> I feel that if someone wants a full 'Transarc distribution' then they
> should build OpenAFS themselves.  If someone wants to install OpenAFS
> on their Red Hat (or Debian, or any other distribution) system, my
> guess is that they expect the package to supply a working
> installation, not a directory tree that has no meaning to them.

Keep in mind that I provided a separate compatibility RPM that you 
wouldn't expect anyone to install unless they wanted the compatibility 
it offers.  Including the compat part of the spec file doesn't force 
/usr/afsws on anyone.  The description can even make it clear that it's 
not required for new installations.

> It's not a 'Red Hat' standard per se -- it's the Linux FSSTND.  Also,
> I don't ship everything that builds -- I only ship a subset of the
> applications.

Right.  And I think that's a good approach.

> The issue is that RPMs are for individual installations.  They are NOT
> designed for a system-wide network-based distribution hierarchy.  The
> transarc 'dest' tree does that quite well.  So, if you want a 'dest'
> tree, compile yourself.  If you want an easy-to-install system,
> install the RPM.

Who says RPMs are not for system-wide network-based distribution?  Of 
course they are!  That's the way we're using them.  That's the way Red 
Hat distributes them too.

Also, we use RPMs as individual software units we can keep track of to 
maintain the overall mix of software to be installed on any given 
system.  We use RPM to install ALL software on the system.  That means 
we make our own RPMS for local stuff, and sometimes we have to provide 
our own RPMs to replace what Red Hat provides.

Substitute any other Linux distribution you like in place of "Red Hat" 
above and it's still all true.

Rudy