[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi Troy,
> 
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
>> Howdy,
>> I always like to update the openafs along with a kernel security errata.
>> Well, there is a new kernel for SL 5, and I was going to release openafs
>> 1.4.6 (which is the openafs in SL 5.1) as a security errata for the SL 5.0
>> folk.
>> Since this really is a openafs security update, I think it is the right thing
>> to do.  But I just wanted to let anyone give any reason's why they think this
>> is a bad idea.
>> Anyone see any reason's why not to update the openafs in SL 5?
> 
> No. To be honest, most of my fileservers still run 1.4.4, but it's time to
> upgrade to 1.4.6. The client should be ok anyway.
> 
>> What about SL 4?
> 
> It would certainly be nice to have both at the same OpenAFS release, and
> the 1.4.6-58 client is doing fine on a number of SL4 systems here. I'm not
> sure that the DOS issue is serious enough that we couldn't wait for the
> next kernel update or SL release though.
> 
> NB is 4.6 still on? Just curious, I'm not actually waiting for it. Or are
> you planning to wait until 4.7 (the last SL4 update?) ?
> 

Yes, SL 4.6 is still planned.
Since more people wanted SL 5.1 we devoted all of our time to it and just let 
SL 4.6 stagnate.  We're still cleaning up the last of SL 5.1 (there always 
seems to be a week of work after the release), and working on SLF 5.1 (figuring 
out how to do Fermilab's workgroups).
But we are not starting the wheels moving again on SL 4.6.  Expect to see some 
updates next week.  Since there isn't as many installer changes, hopefully it 
will be quicker to get out than SL 5.1 was.  (Also, no major holidays in the 
middle of development)

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________