I updated the RHEL4 RPMs to the 1.4.0-rc1 release.
Changes between the previous (1.3.87) RPMs and these RPMs:
- I included Russ Allbery's patch from RT #18767 to fix the shared
library versioning on Linux (set the ELF SONAME properly). This
will fix the RPM dependency problem various people have
complained about, and ensure that the AFS shared libraries
adhere to the Linux version naming convention.
See http://rt.central.org/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=18767
- On a related note, I split out the shared libraries (libafsrpc
and libafsauthent) and related files into 2 new packages:
'openafs-authlibs' and 'openafs-authlibs-devel'. Since nothing
in the OpenAFS build actually uses these libraries at the
moment, they should probably go into a separate piece for now.
- fixed a few small typos/bugs in the RPM spec file
You can download the 1.4.0-rc1 packages for i386 and x86_64 from:
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wingc/openafs/dist/1.4.0-rc1
Note that the pam_krb5 module in RHEL4 is defective. It will not obtain
AFS tokens if -dynroot is enabled (which is the default in OpenAFS 1.4);
it also may not obtain tokens if you have more than 1 AFS server. I have
entered bug reports and patches in bugzilla but Red Hat has not acted upon
any of them. In the mean time you can download fixed pam_krb5 RPMs for
i386 and x86_64 from here:
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~wingc/openafs/pam_krb5/2.1.2-1.fixed
Along the same lines of the recent discussion about OpenBSD, should any
extra configuration options be enabled for these RPMs? (I am thinking of
--enable-largefile-fileserver and --enable-supergroups, for instance)
My thinking has been that since they are not enabled by default in the
OpenAFS source, they shouldn't be enabled in the RPMs either. Is there any
reason to disagree with this?
Thanks,
Chris Wing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
