Coda File System

Re: please help

From: Peter T. Breuer <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:04:42 +0100 (MET)
"A month of sundays ago Peter J. Braam wrote:"
> 1. If you don't run it on Red Hat current - become the maintainer for that
> platform and tell us.   People that are running Coda on Red Hat are
> reporting  few difficulties compared to what you are reporting.

I don't run it on any other platform but my own - this seems to reflect
a basic miscomprehension about the way linux works. There aren't "official"
distributions. My platforms here are 2.0.* - based, with libc5. That sould
be enough to get autoconf up and running with.

Some machines were slackware 2.1 many years ago, and the distribution got
ported from one machine to another, with parts added in from slackware
3.0-3.4 in particular, and everything works.  Binaries are compiled here
or brought in from SuSE, which is the most compatible binary/config
-wise.  Redhat 4.2 also runs on some sparcs.

The point is that an autconf would have no trouble with this setup. The fact
that we have 2GB of compiled software as opposed to an installed binary base
of 500MB says that we compile fine here (and that we compile too much).

Asking for a maintainer for the many linux distributions and the more that will
spring up is the wrong question.

> We have taken lots of patches from people to support, Sparc, PowerPC, etc.
> etc.  On the other hand we can't put in patches that break portability.

Indeed not. That's what autoconf is for.

> I'd be happy to reconsider the slackware patches if they are carefully
> done, to not break things on other platforms.
> 2. If you don't want to work with Coda 5.0 you're making a big mistake. 

:-). Any kind of change is a big mistake on a production platform.

> mention a few things he did:
> - Sparc Linux patches
> - glibc pathces
> - early bug reports for version 4.2


> Everything he did is in.  Jan was equally helpful, we hired him. 


Received on 1999-01-19 16:12:14