On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 07/04/2014 12:22 PM, Stephan Wiesand wrote:
>>
>>  From the SL7.0 alpha announcement:
>>
>>> This ALPHA does not include many historic SL addons.
>>>
>>> We would like to open discussion on which specific packages/utilities
>>> should be added to SL 7.
>>>
>>> Specific topics of conversation:
>>> - OpenAFS
>>>    We are interested in OpenAFS for SL7
>>
>> I'd be willing to care for openafs packaging for SL7, unless you'd rather
>> have someone else maintain is, or use something else.
>
>
> As our resident OpenAFS expert and OpenAFS project member, I'd love it if
> you cared for these packages.  I didn't want to volunteer you, but if you're
> interested, please!
>
>
>>
>> I think there are some questions we should answer before choosing or going
>> to work:
>>
>> 1) If SL7 will have it's own packaging, should the packages renamed to
>> something like "openafs16" or even "openafs16-sl"? I think that's a good
>> idea, for two reasons: It avoids clashes or even inadvertent mixing with
>> other packages like the ELrepo ones, and it would allow us to provide
>> OpenAFS 1.8 (likely the next stable series) packages eventually, without
>> forcing such a significant update on sites in the middle of a major SL
>> release cycle.
>
>
> I see where you are headed here, and it is interesting.  I'll let others add
> their thoughts, but this sounds like a viable approach. I know we've got a
> few ELRepo folks on the list.  If we can find a way to reduce everyone's
> over all labour here that would be great! We may have to take that to the
> elrepo list for full exposure there.

Speaking as a person from ELRepo... I think it's a great idea to
combine the efforts. However, at this point in time, I'm not sure if
our (ELRepo's) OpenAFS maintainer has the time for EL7. I need to ask
him.

Akemi