DJ Lucas wrote:
>
> Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand your concern, but is there anything that either nis of
>> nfs
>>
>> offers that we can't get via other packages? Samba can certainly
>> replace the nfs functionality. I don't know of anyone who uses nis
>> any
>>
>> more, although I suspect there are some who use it just out of
>> habit.
>
> Out of habit, IDK...but being able to use it out of the box without
> installing anything else on a base LFS seems somewhat compelling to
> me. Please note that I do not do this myself, just playing devil's
> advocate here. It just seems a little bit silly to ditch those
> packages completely when it is a relatively easy fix.
I guess I'm in a mood to drop packages when justified. In this case, we
don't have a 'stable' upstream and there is a good alternative package.
> Maybe just add
> a note and point to wiki instructions if nothing else until upstream
> blesses us with a working solution.
A note in the wiki would be OK, but I don't know where to put it with
the packages removed. If you want to write something up to put in
"Other Networking Programs", we could do that.
> Of course, we no longer have to keep {,x}inetd instructions in mind
> when configuring a package. Couple of boot scripts might have to be
> added, swat w/ stunnel for instance.
I'm not sure I understand where this came from. I don't particularly
like {,x}inetd, but I wasn't going to drop them. However you are right
about adding a boot script. Basically, I think the only thing needed is:
stunnel -p /etc/stunnel/stunnel.pem -d 901 -l /usr/bin/swat swat
I'll try that when I get to samba. I'm working on prereqs for samba now.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
