[OpenAFS] OpenAFS support plans for redhat and fedora

[Christopher Arnold]

Derek Atkins wrote:

>Christopher Arnold <chris@pictage.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>There's been a lot of discussion at my company regarding which direction
>>we are planning on
>>going now that RedHat has announced it's new enterprise business
>>initiatives in the coming year.
>>I was just curious as to whether or not there are plans to support the
>>Fedora project or
>>RH enterprise version 3 or both.  Just trying to get a feel for what
>>impact to upgrades we might
>>expect running OpenAFS on redhat linux.
>>    
>>
>
>Are you asking about OpenAFS source compatibility or Binary RPM
>Distribution If the former, please stop reading now, I'm only going to
>talk about the latter (being the RPM maintainer).
>  
>


I was asking generally about both package management and source
compatibility.  According to RedHat's website they're
 planning only 1 release per year of RHEL and 3 releases per year of
Fedora.  I just wanted to get a general idea of how much
things *really* will change between the two and how the developers feel
about supporting two release cycles where there
was once one.  I guess, as you wisely suggested, we'll have to take a
'wait and see' attitude for a release or two of each.


Thanks for replying!


-- 
Christopher Arnold
Systems Administrator                E-Mail:  Chris at Pictage.com 
Pictage, Inc. USA                       Tel:  (310) 525-1629 



>Honestly, I dont know what I'm planning to do in terms of RPM builds.
>Previously I've only build RPMS for the official RHL releases and then
>tried to keep up with updated kernels.  Each OpenAFS release usually
>takes me about 48 hours to complete all the builds.  OTOH, from the
>patches being sent in by some Red Hat people it's possible they may
>plan to distribute OpenAFS themselves, but I don't know for sure.
>
>Personally, I dont know which releases to actually try to support
>anymore.  It takes about 5GB per release to maintain the vmware
>installation where I do the builds (of which I've got about 25G free,
>IIRC).  In the past I decided not to support beta releases, but with
>Fedora I'm just confused about what constitutes a "release" anymore.
>
>Frankly, I dont have the time to build against every "potential"
>release -- I want to focus on "real" releases.  So, I've pretty much
>been waiting to see how this all plays out.
>
>I should point out that the SRPM will build just fine on RHEL-3.0 with
>a minor change to disable the builds for i386 (and maybe i586)
>processors.
>
>-derek
>
>  
>