[OpenAFS-devel] [FOR TESTING] OpenAFS 1.4.0-rc1 RPMs for RHEL4 (i386, x86_64)

[Christopher Allen Wing]

I updated the RHEL4 RPMs to the 1.4.0-rc1 release.

Changes between the previous (1.3.87) RPMs and these RPMs:

 	- I included Russ Allbery's patch from RT #18767 to fix the shared
 	  library versioning on Linux (set the ELF SONAME properly). This
 	  will fix the RPM dependency problem various people have
 	  complained about, and ensure that the AFS shared libraries
 	  adhere to the Linux version naming convention.

 	  See http://rt.central.org/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=18767

 	- On a related note, I split out the shared libraries (libafsrpc
 	  and libafsauthent) and related files into 2 new packages:
 	  'openafs-authlibs' and 'openafs-authlibs-devel'. Since nothing
 	  in the OpenAFS build actually uses these libraries at the
 	  moment, they should probably go into a separate piece for now.

 	- fixed a few small typos/bugs in the RPM spec file



You can download the 1.4.0-rc1 packages for i386 and x86_64 from:

 	http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wingc/openafs/dist/1.4.0-rc1


Note that the pam_krb5 module in RHEL4 is defective. It will not obtain 
AFS tokens if -dynroot is enabled (which is the default in OpenAFS 1.4); 
it also may not obtain tokens if you have more than 1 AFS server. I have 
entered bug reports and patches in bugzilla but Red Hat has not acted upon 
any of them. In the mean time you can download fixed pam_krb5 RPMs for 
i386 and x86_64 from here:

 	http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wingc/openafs/pam_krb5/2.1.2-1.fixed



Along the same lines of the recent discussion about OpenBSD, should any 
extra configuration options be enabled for these RPMs? (I am thinking of 
--enable-largefile-fileserver and --enable-supergroups, for instance)

My thinking has been that since they are not enabled by default in the 
OpenAFS source, they shouldn't be enabled in the RPMs either. Is there any 
reason to disagree with this?


Thanks,

Chris Wing
wingc@engin.umich.edu