On Thu, 8 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> writes:
Secondly, this is easily modifiable by distributions. I think the
closest thing Linux has to a "platform" like those of commercial unices
(and maybe the BSDs) is a distribution-specific moniker. Just because
the OpenAFS project doesn't include anything more specific than
"$arch_linux26" by default doesn't mean we can't have a distro-specific
tag by default in front of that (and the RPMs related to this thread are
already doing that). That seems like a pretty easy way to get more
granularity and be more 'modern'.
I suppose I could do that in Debian. I'd feel more comfortable doing it
if any Debian user had ever indicated a desire for an @sys that identified
the Debian stable version (which would be the obvious thing to put in
there).
If I do that for Debian, though, Ubuntu is going to be a mess.
You mean like this?
[kaduk ~]$ ssh athena.dialup.mit.edu fs sysname
Current sysname list is 'amd64_ubuntu1004' 'i386_ubuntu1004'
'amd64_ubuntu910' 'i386_ubuntu910' 'amd64_ubuntu904' 'i386_ubuntu904'
'amd64_deb50' 'i386_deb50' 'amd64_ubuntu804' 'i386_ubuntu804'
'amd64_deb40' 'i386_deb40' 'i386_rhel4' 'i386_rhel3' 'i386_linux24'
We do still have substantial software deployments in AFS, and the glibc
version changes do bite us fairly often, so we need that extra
granularity.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
