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