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