[OpenAFS] 1.1.0 client on RH 7.1

[Derek Atkins]

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.

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.  In addition, I want to ship a WORKING SYSTEM.  That
means that users who install OpenAFS should get the openafs
application _in their path_ by default.  This is why apps are located
in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin.  If there weren't a hardcoded dependency on
/usr/afs/bin, I'd move those server binaries to /usr/sbin as well!

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.

-derek

Jan Hrabe <hrabe@balrog.aecom.yu.edu> writes:

> I think that it is very important to keep as much compatibility 
> as possible. I would even argue in favour of keeping only
> the traditional file locations. It seems that quite a few sites will
> administer mixed installations for some time and it makes live a lot
> easier if files don't move around. Is there any other reason
> for the change than adherence to RedHat "standard"?
> 
> Honza
> _______________________________________________
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available