2010/5/27 Daniel Scott <djscott(a)mit.edu&gt;: > I'm interested to know the status of the RPMFusion packages for > OpenAFS with Fedora 13. > > I've installed Fedora 13 and installed the Fedora 12 RPMs for OpenAFS > from RPMFusion. The only problem is the kernel module which needs to > be built for the new kernel available in F13. I've built and installed > the kernel module RPM using the SRPM from OpenAFS.org and it appears > to be working fine with no problems. > > Is there anything I can do to help get the rpms built for RPMFusion? > I can help to package the openvas-kmod, if you can package and maintain the userspace part of openvas.

Hi, I'm interested to know the status of the RPMFusion packages for OpenAFS with Fedora 13. I've installed Fedora 13 and installed the Fedora 12 RPMs for OpenAFS from RPMFusion. The only problem is the kernel module which needs to be built for the new kernel available in F13. I've built and installed the kernel module RPM using the SRPM from OpenAFS.org and it appears to be working fine with no problems. Is there anything I can do to help get the rpms built for RPMFusion? Thanks, Dan Scott

i just wondered why someone would need AFS?  it sounds like a distributed NFS?  I wonder what scenario would need it. On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu&gt; wrote: > Folks, > > Yeah, apperently CVS just didn't want to cooperate with me and wouldn't > update the new F-13 directories.  Learn something everyday, right? > > Dan, the OpenAFS packages are built and should hit testing during the > next push. > > Jack > -- > Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu&gt; > Linux Czar, OIT Campus Linux Services > Office of Information Technology, NC State University > GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89 >

Hi, As far as I know, these are the main differences between AFS and NFS: NFS has little/no security (Although I think V4 does?). AFS integrates with Kerberos (And hopefully soon with LDAP) so works well with centralised user management. AFS allows for multiple redundant servers and filesystem snapshots which makes it more reliable. As you say, it is distributed. You can share your files with the whole world or no-one. AFS has a very good caching mechanism. AFS has ACLs, more fine-grained than Unix file permissions. That's all I can think of at the moment. :) Some of these features might well be present in the latest versions of NFS. Dan On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:53, solarflow99 <solarflow99(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > i just wondered why someone would need AFS?  it sounds like a > distributed NFS?  I wonder what scenario would need it. > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu&gt; wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Yeah, apperently CVS just didn't want to cooperate with me and wouldn't >> update the new F-13 directories.  Learn something everyday, right? >> >> Dan, the OpenAFS packages are built and should hit testing during the >> next push. >> >> Jack >> -- >> Jack Neely <jjneely(a)ncsu.edu&gt; >> Linux Czar, OIT Campus Linux Services >> Office of Information Technology, NC State University >> GPG Fingerprint: 1917 5AC1 E828 9337 7AA4  EA6B 213B 765F 3B6A 5B89 >> >