On Sat Sep 06, 2003 at 01:14:59PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote: > > > >> am-utils is a very much-needed package for Linux to integrate into big > > > >> "UNIX shops". > > > >> > > > >> NASA/JPL (at least in my section) is a big "UNIX Shop". Wiothout > > > >> am-utils we are pretty screwed... is there a reason this package was > > > >> removed from 9.2 ? Has it just been renamed? > > > >> > > > > > > > > BTW, this package was removed from 9.1 also. I made my own RPM from the > > > > only in 9.0, but it's still a hassle. > > It's in contrib in 9.1 and cooker.
Hmmm... well, to be honest, I never did look in contribs. I suppose I should have. =) > > > > When I reccomend Mandrake to other admins the first thing they ask is > > > > "Where fsck is am-utils"? I then send them some RPM's... But it would be > > > > nice if it was shipped standard... > > > > > > And you are using it instead of autofs because...? > > > > I'll tell you why I do. autofs is ok, but I find am-utils simpler, better, > > and nicer performance. I was actually a little irked to find am-utils > > missing in 9.1 as well (not that rebuilding from 9.0 was a big deal). > > But it's in contrib, there is an alternative in main => what's the > problem? I never said there was a problem. I just indicated my own personal situation; I'm quite capable of searching in contribs (which I didn't do) or rebuilding it myself (which I did). No real problem at all. I answered a question; I didn't indicate I had a problem. > And if people miss alternative packages in main, and don't find the > package they want in contrib, is it wise to put uucp in contrib??? Sorry, > but it seems that you two have just managed to prove why moving something > which has no better implementation in main to contrib is a bad idea (even > experienced users miss it). Well, it's not that I missed it... I just never looked. I rarely add contribs as a urpmi source, which is the most likely reason why I missed it. The other reason is I just didn't think about checking contribs. I don't think we proved anything other than perhaps a little laziness and/or incompetence (if that, even). So, by your point above, we should have one of everything in main? Well, where's my better implementation of gkrellm-plugins (in contribs). Oh, well, just for kicks, let's throw a few others out there. Where's my alternative to zssh or zope or xscorch or webalizer/analog or uudeview or seahorse... ad naseum. What makes uucp better than any of these programs that don't have a "better alternative" in main? > > What floors me (and yes, I'm driving more nails into an already dead horse > > for those on the maintainers list), is why we move out good useful stuff > > like am-utils but keep in pretty much useless stuff like uucp. > > Well, if am-utils is better, it should replace autofs in main (autofs can > go to contrib). But, AFAIK, there is no alternative for uucp, and packages > in main (postfix) contain entries in the default config for it (thus you > kind of expect it to be available ...). The postfix issue is one thing, but if postfix doesn't depend on uucp, I don't see how it's really relevant. Again, if 5% (probably being overly generous here) of our users use uucp, why is it in main? > BTW, I haven't used am-utils, only autofs, but does anyone know if > am-utils has ldapv3 support (autofs at present only has ldapv2 support, > and this makes connections to openldap-2.1.x not work out-the-box). That I couldn't tell you. The only thing I use LDAP for is address book and authentication. I suspect you're referring to automount maps or some such? -- MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/ Online Security Resource Book; http://linsec.ca/ "lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import" {FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
