On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Anselm Lingnau <[email protected]> wrote: > In actual practice, relatively few people will actually go to the trouble.
Well, at Starnix, it's a rare box that goes out that isn't buildable with Puppet and any loose ends packaged up. I know that this concept is fairly foreign to the clients (and their IT) but I would like to hope that other Linux-centric consultancies/support orgs would be following this practice. Any independents or support guys want to speak up? > On the other hand, this would amount to LPI dictating policy to system Well, we test DPKG and RPM. Does that mean LPI policy is that orgs should use both? :) Moot point, I think, though, considering the next paragraph. > administrators via the exam, which I would think is not what the exam is for – > the exam should follow »best practices«, not try to force them where they > don't actually exist in the field. LPI's method of arriving at exam contents > seems to suggest that if package building doesn't show up to an appreciable > degree in the JTA, LPI has no business sticking it in just because we like the > idea. And here, we're in complete agreement. However, in order for this topic to get into the JTA, someone has to suggest it. PS - Thanks for the private response on the LPIC-1 projects. If anyone else wants to send me ideas privately, I'd be happy to summarise them for the list. Regards, -- G. Matthew Rice <[email protected]> gpg id: EF9AAD20 _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
