[OpenAFS] OpenAFS & Linux kernel 2.6: please have a trackable bug report / task ?

[Holger Brueckner]

On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 15:27, Derek Atkins wrote:
> I use a standard (RHL) kernel on all my machines.  Why?  Why not?
> It's easier to update, easier to install, and it works just fine for
> me.  In fact, ALL of MIT's machines use the standard kernel because
> it's easier to update automatically.

ok, from that large scale perspective it might be usefull. althouth i
don't see the point why it should be more difficult to get the source
rpm, add some small modifications to the spec file, do a rpm -ba and
then distribute the resulting rpm. you have to do it for the openafs
binaries.

(i dumped rpm in favor of apt/dpkg some while ago, so i may be slightly
wrong here)

> > these people for sure won't use afs themselves, since its not that easy
> 
> BZZT.  Think again.

my point of view is/was a 100 person site installation, where some
computers are running linux as desktop/server os. it probably has only
one or two admins which also manage the afs servers. i'm sure they know
how to build and distribute a kernel with small modifications.

> > to configure or maintain. you even have to rebuild afs kernel modules
> > each time there is a kernel security upgrade and probably ever admin who
> > is capable of rebuilding the kernel modules is capable of building his
> > own kernel.
> 
> Who has to rebuild the kernel modules?  You have one person build an RPM
> with the modules and it _JUST WORKS_.

see above ;)

Holger