On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Stephan Wiesand wrote:

> Hi Troy, All,
> 
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
> > Howdy,
> > Back in May we talked some about moving to openafs 1.4.1, and we have some 
> > rpm's for it at
> >
> > ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/40rolling/testing/i386/RPMS/openafs
> 
> We moved all SL4 clients (the majority of systems here is still SL3, but 
> the number of SL4 production systems is significant now) to these in May, 
> and they've been working very well. We're also running two test files 
> servers using these packages. You definitely don't want to run the 1.4.0 
> servers. In fact our production servers are SL3/1.2.13 and will be for a 
> while (I'm a coward).
> 
> > What did everyone think.  Should we move to it, or stay with 1.4.0 like we 
> > currently have.
> > As for myself, I'd like to move to it because we occasionally have users have 
> > problems that I'm quite sure are fixed in 1.4.1
> 
> IMHO, SL4.4 should come with 1.4.1 at least.
> 
> I was hoping they'd release 1.4.2 in time. There's a beta3 I haven't built
> packages from yet. But maybe we should aim for putting this into the SL4.4 
> beta, with the existing 1.4.1 packages as a fallback? Of course we can
> have 1.4.2 in testing again, and maybe in fastbugs later (aren't the 
> intervals between updates going to be longer after 4.4?).

Red Hat said 6 months instead of 3 months.  So fastbugs should get lots 
more use with the new time scale.

> 
> 
> NB just remove the leading "0." from the release before rebuilding 1.4.1,
>     other than that the spec should be good I hope
> 
> Cheers,
>  	Stephan
> 
> 

-Connie Sieh