Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Hello Javier, Am 2006-12-22 03:37:54, schrieb Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 06:51:58PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: No, it works, but since portmap is not more (since Sarge) installed by default it need arround 60-300 seconds to mount but after this time, it is there. Are you sure it's not installed? It's Priority: standard so if the user (in tasksel) selects 'standard' he *will* get the portmapper. What is tasksel? :-) I do not need the shit it installs... Only the REAL baseinstall (which under Sarge has already to much packages) compared to Woody and Etch is the hell!) Not sure right now what happens if he selects another task but, at least in Sarge, since fam (installed because of dependencies in the GNOME task [1]) depended on the portmapper it would get installed in that case too. From what I see in tasksel's sources, the same should be true for Etch too. Right? Yes. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Am 2006-11-07 04:40:21, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install? No, it works, but since portmap is not more (since Sarge) installed by default it need arround 60-300 seconds to mount but after this time, it is there. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 06:51:58PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: Am 2006-11-07 04:40:21, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install? No, it works, but since portmap is not more (since Sarge) installed by default it need arround 60-300 seconds to mount but after this time, it is there. Are you sure it's not installed? It's Priority: standard so if the user (in tasksel) selects 'standard' he *will* get the portmapper. Not sure right now what happens if he selects another task but, at least in Sarge, since fam (installed because of dependencies in the GNOME task [1]) depended on the portmapper it would get installed in that case too. From what I see in tasksel's sources, the same should be true for Etch too. Right? Regards Javier [1] More precisely the dependency of gnome-desktop-environment which is part of the 'gnome-desktop' task signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Tim Cutts [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default install. What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install? The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the NFS client? But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install? And I'm not sure that you are right with your majority claim. A lot of larger installations use nfs and they quickly add up to a lot of systems rivaling the rest of the user base in numbers. Perhaps it's time I installed popcon on the 1000+ Debian systems I maintain as part of my job... :-) Tim No default route on the compute nodes in our clusters. They can only talk to the master nodes and themself. :( MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 02:06:04PM +, Tim Cutts wrote: I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more except on restricted sets of computers. puts hand up Er, here. Global NFS home directories. And at the last place I worked. And the place before that. Oh, actually, in every single place I've worked for the past 10 years. I suppose you could claim the set of machines running NFS is restricted in that it's behind a firewall, but that's the only sense. I'm pretty sure that's the sense that was meant. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils [was: Re: Upgrading the priority of ucf]
On 6 Nov 2006, at 9:26 am, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default install. If someone wants to run an nfs server, they can install an nfs server package, either nfs-kernel-server or nfs-user-server (no good reason to prefer one to the other). nfs-user-server is deprecated. I think we shouldn't even ship it at all. I still use it on some real-world servers, but I can't now remember why. I definitely found something which only worked with the userland server. Wish I could remember what it was, but since the machines in question are production servers, I'm not about to mess with them to find out... Tim
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default install. What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install? The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the NFS client? But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install? And I'm not sure that you are right with your majority claim. A lot of larger installations use nfs and they quickly add up to a lot of systems rivaling the rest of the user base in numbers. Perhaps it's time I installed popcon on the 1000+ Debian systems I maintain as part of my job... :-) Tim
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On 7 Nov 2006, at 11:17 pm, Brian May wrote: Goswin == Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] tuebingen.de writes: Goswin But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path Goswin /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh Goswin install? Not really, no. I would be more surprised if it did work. NFS has a reputation of being insecure. I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more except on restricted sets of computers. puts hand up Er, here. Global NFS home directories. And at the last place I worked. And the place before that. Oh, actually, in every single place I've worked for the past 10 years. I suppose you could claim the set of machines running NFS is restricted in that it's behind a firewall, but that's the only sense. Tim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils [was: Re: Upgrading the priority of ucf]
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 02:01:11PM +, Tim Cutts wrote: I still use it on some real-world servers, but I can't now remember why. I definitely found something which only worked with the userland server. uid mapping, perhaps? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Le mercredi 08 novembre 2006 à 12:35 +1100, Brian May a écrit : Back on topic, is Samba included in the default installation? A graphical SMB client is included as part of the desktop task. -- Josselin Mouette/\./\ Do you have any more insane proposals for me? signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 01:51:33AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the default installation. It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential: yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX system, I believe this (= standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX system) should be shoved into a task or even CDD. Or we could just not install those if people select Desktop during the install (the latter might be the case already, haven't checked). Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Thursday 09 November 2006 15:57, Michael Banck wrote: I believe this (= standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX system) should be shoved into a task or even CDD. Or we could just not install those if people select Desktop during the install (the latter might be the case already, haven't checked). When have you last done an installation? It _is_ in a separate task now. If you don't select it, you get only what is installed by debootstrap. The standard task is always selected by default. You have to deselect it if you do not want it installed. pgpPE8XYtNrqL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061108 00:32]: I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more except on restricted sets of computers. If restricted set includes the whole company network at one location, then that matches my experience as well ... Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 08:47:27AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: All things considered I'd rather have nfs, even in it's horrid traditional form, than nothing. Luckily, NFS would be only one apt-get away. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the default installation. That might be. It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential: yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX system, including things like a working c c++ compiler, etc. 70% of users using something is, IMO, a very strong argument for it to be installed by default. I don't have a UNIX background. So I don't know what everyone expects to be on a UNIX system. (Remember: installed by default does not mean you have to install it. It just means if you don't manually select packages, it will be installed). This in practice means almost the same. If it is selected by default only very few users will de-select it. On the other hand, if someone needs it it's easy to install. Generally I am in favor of the default install beeing really minimal (only essential packages) and let the user decide which packages he wants. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential: yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX system, including things like a working c c++ compiler, etc. 70% of users using something is, IMO, a very strong argument for it to be installed by default. I don't have a UNIX background. So I don't know what everyone expects to be on a UNIX system. Then perhaps you shouldn't be changing a winning team? ;-) (Remember: installed by default does not mean you have to install it. It just means if you don't manually select packages, it will be installed). This in practice means almost the same. If it is selected by default only very few users will de-select it. Wrong. On the other hand, if someone needs it it's easy to install. If you don't need it, it's also easy to remove. Generally I am in favor of the default install beeing really minimal (only essential packages) and let the user decide which packages he wants. That may be, but it's not the way Debian has worked for years. By default, packages of priority Standard (and above) are installed. And as Debian policy describes it, standard is defined as follows: `standard' These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default if the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include many large applications. whereas important is one step above and defined as: `important' Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced Unix person who found it missing would say What on earth is going on, where is `foo'?, it must be an `important' package.[1] Other packages without which the system will not run well or be usable must also have priority `important'. This does _not_ include Emacs, the X Window System, TeX or any other large applications. The `important' packages are just a bare minimum of commonly-expected and necessary tools. In other words, it doesn't have to be essential for the system to work in order to be installed by default. The ability to mount NFS-filesystems most certainly is part of the expectation of an experienced Unix person; thus, it should be part of the set of important packages and should be installed by default. I see no reason to change that; the definitions in policy are sound this way. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:17:55AM +1100, Brian May wrote: Goswin == Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path Goswin /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh Goswin install? Not really, no. I would be more surprised if it did work. NFS has a reputation of being insecure. Thinking of NFSv2 here, aren't we? I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more except on restricted sets of computers. Then they should take a look at NFSv3 and/or NFSv4. In combination with kerberos authentication, they're pretty secure. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:35:37PM +1100, Brian May wrote: Miles == Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Miles [Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in Miles that it's fixed some of the most egregious nfs Miles bogosities?] I have been told NFS 4 has nothing in common with NFS except the name, This may be because early versions of the Linux implementation for NFSv4 made it impossible to connect to v2/v3 and v4 servers at the same time from the same client. This is no longer true. NFSv4 is still an RPC-based protocol; as with any RPC-based protocol, the server is listed on the portmapper along with a protocol version, so an NFSv4 server will not communicate with an NFSv3 client (you would need an NFSv3 server running on the same host to be able to communicate with an NFSv3 client, as is the case for v2 vs v3, too). The way you export your filesystems to the client is also fairly different, and pretty strange if you know how NFSv2 and v3 work. But apart from that, it's still pretty similar. and its reputation for being insecure (even if this reputation in unfair...). It most likely is. Miles All things considered I'd rather have nfs, even in it's Miles horrid traditional form, than nothing. There are still times when traditional NFS is still the best solution (disclaimer: I haven't user NFS 4). Perhaps you should give it a try. Does nfs-kernel-server support v4 yet? Yes, though you need a fairly recent kernel to be able to do so, especially if you want the kerberos goodies. The one in sarge isn't able to; the one in etch will be. -- Lo-lan-do Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:19:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: NFSv4 is still an RPC-based protocol; as with any RPC-based protocol, the server is listed on the portmapper along with a protocol version FWIW, NFSv4 no longer needs the portmapper. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote: Then perhaps you shouldn't be changing a winning team? ;-) Who are you referring to? This in practice means almost the same. If it is selected by default only very few users will de-select it. Wrong. Well, I should have worded that differently. The above is a bit too absolute. I guess, it all depends on the demographics of the Debian users. On the other hand, if someone needs it it's easy to install. If you don't need it, it's also easy to remove. Of course. If you know it is installed and that you don't need it. In other words, it doesn't have to be essential for the system to work in order to be installed by default. The ability to mount NFS-filesystems most certainly is part of the expectation of an experienced Unix person; thus, it should be part of the set of important packages and should be installed by default. I see no reason to change that; the definitions in policy are sound this way. Well, Idon't want to argue with the policy. It is certainly not unreasonable as it is. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I'm not sure that you are right with your majority claim. A lot of larger installations use nfs and they quickly add up to a lot of systems rivaling the rest of the user base in numbers. But, I am not sure whether you can count them all as individual installations as many of those probably get installed on one system and then copied to another. And they are managed by only a few admins. I would guess that most people who install a linux system don't need NFS. And actually, NFS us not required to run Debian. Do I don't think it needs to be in the default installation even if 70% of the users will use it. IMHO Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Roger Leigh wrote: What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install? Because it's the standard GNU way of doing this kind of job? The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see tend to not use NFS at all. I guess there is truth in this statement. But what else would you use for a network entirely consisting of GNU/Linux machines (lucky me)? Samba is a bridge to the proprietary world so I don't see a single reason to use it if there are no Windows hosts involved. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 10:49, Matthias Julius wrote: But, I am not sure whether you can count them all as individual installations as many of those probably get installed on one system and then copied to another. And they are managed by only a few admins. Preseed is your friend. It's extremely easy to setup netboots that are customized however you want these days. There is no reason you can't install nfs stuff as part of your preseed. We use a postinstall init.d script to install extra packages we need, like gfortran and other goodies. I would guess that most people who install a linux system don't need NFS. I think that is a largely fair statement. None of my home systems or laptops use it. And actually, NFS us not required to run Debian. This is the coup de grace. Why should something be essential if it is not really, well essential? Do I don't think it needs to be in the default installation even if 70% of the users will use it. IMHO Word. wt -- Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Science -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Goswin == Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Goswin But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path Goswin /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh Goswin install? Not really, no. I would be more surprised if it did work. NFS has a reputation of being insecure. I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more except on restricted sets of computers. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:17:55AM +1100, Brian May wrote: I would be more surprised if it did work. NFS has a reputation of being insecure. Try Kerberized NFS :-) I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more except on restricted sets of computers. The university here is opening up for Kerberos-enabled NFSv4 from the entire campus network RSN. Now you know one :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The university here is opening up for Kerberos-enabled NFSv4 from the entire campus network RSN. Now you know one :-) [Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in that it's fixed some of the most egregious nfs bogosities?] I use nfs everyday, and in its default form it's insanely slow, completely insecure, and annoyingly clunky to administer -- but it's what people use... and there really isn't much in the way of widely available, easily deployable/maintainable, legacy-compatible alternatives. All things considered I'd rather have nfs, even in it's horrid traditional form, than nothing. -Miles -- `Cars give people wonderful freedom and increase their opportunities. But they also destroy the environment, to an extent so drastic that they kill all social life' (from _A Pattern Language_) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Miles == Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Miles [Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in Miles that it's fixed some of the most egregious nfs Miles bogosities?] I have been told NFS 4 has nothing in common with NFS except the name, and its reputation for being insecure (even if this reputation in unfair...). Miles All things considered I'd rather have nfs, even in it's Miles horrid traditional form, than nothing. There are still times when traditional NFS is still the best solution (disclaimer: I haven't user NFS 4). Does nfs-kernel-server support v4 yet? Back on topic, is Samba included in the default installation? If yes = should NFS be treated as lesser then Samba and not included by default? If no = why is NFS included when Samba isn't? Isn't this inconstant? Anyway, just some thoughts - personally, for the rare case I need NFS, I am happy to install it myself. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Matthias Julius wrote: I would guess that most people who install a linux system don't need NFS. Donno. I use it on all my systems, home and otherwise; how else would I mount file servers... And actually, NFS us not required to run Debian. Do I don't think it needs to be in the default installation even if 70% of the users will use it. IMHO I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the default installation. It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential: yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX system, including things like a working c c++ compiler, etc. 70% of users using something is, IMO, a very strong argument for it to be installed by default. (Remember: installed by default does not mean you have to install it. It just means if you don't manually select packages, it will be installed). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils [was: Re: Upgrading the priority of ucf]
Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default install. If someone wants to run an nfs server, they can install an nfs server package, either nfs-kernel-server or nfs-user-server (no good reason to prefer one to the other). nfs-user-server is deprecated. I think we shouldn't even ship it at all. -- Josselin Mouette /\./\ pouet pouet « Sans puissance, la maîtrise n'est rien. »
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default install. What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install? The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the NFS client? Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `-GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail. pgpSkvPMikuUv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the NFS client? There is this: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=nfs-utils But I don't know how accurate the old count is, since everyone with it installed has it at least run it's init.d script on boot... - Tyler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit : I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default install. What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install? The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the NFS client? But wouldn't you be surprised if mount -tnfs server:/path /local/path suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install? And I'm not sure that you are right with your majority claim. A lot of larger installations use nfs and they quickly add up to a lot of systems rivaling the rest of the user base in numbers. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils [was: Re: Upgrading the priority of ucf]
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: It has recently come to my attention that nfs-utils (which is priority standard) cannot depend on ucf, since ucf is of priority optional. I can only see four solutions for this: a) Ignore the problem for etch, figure out what do to afterwards. b) Downgrade nfs-utils' priority (but I don't think this is a very good idea). c) Rip out the ucf dependency (possible, but far from ideal; using ucf instead of regular conffile handling allowed me to close a few bugs, at least one of them RC). d) Upgrade ucf to priority standard. I'd personally go with d); would anybody have objections to this? (Cc-ing Manoj as the ucf maintainer, even though I'd believe he reads -devel.) I would suggest b); reducing the standard set of packages seems like a feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part of the *default* install. If someone wants to run an nfs server, they can install an nfs server package, either nfs-kernel-server or nfs-user-server (no good reason to prefer one to the other). - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
