SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2010

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dag Wieers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dag Wieers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 8 Jul 2010 17:40:49 +0200
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (37 lines)
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Troy Dawson wrote:

> With many minor releases, we update the version of openafs for that minor 
> release.  This new version then get's pushed out to the rest of the releases.
> With SL 5.5 we updated openafs to 1.4.12, and we are about to push that 
> version out to the rest of the SL5 releases.  It currently is in testing, and 
> it has passed every updating test I could think to throw at it and it updated 
> without any problems.
>
> We plan on pushing this out on Monday - 12 July 2010
>
> To test or update
>
> SL5
> -------
>
>       yum --enablerepo=sl-testing update kernel-module-openafs\*
>
> or you can download rpm's by hand at
>
> http: //ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/testing/i386/openafs/
> http: //ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/testing/x86_64/openafs/

Would there be any interest if we provided kmod-openafs modules that are 
kernel-agnostic (or kABI-tracking as we say) from ELRepo ?

The advantage is that the modules keep on working through kernel-updates, 
which makes update-cycles (and maintenance) to be less work.

I am tempted to create those packages, but without an interested party 
that can provide sufficient testing the effort is kinda moot.

Let me know,
-- 
--   dag wieers,  [log in to unmask],  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2