On Tuesday 28 August 2007 14:51:49 Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi Jamie, > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:20:28PM -0400, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > > It is clear that there is a desire and need to provide novice admins > > with a way to install certain server software, in this case, file server > > software. Installing a single package via tasks at install (eg 'samba') > > does not really get the novice user any farther along. Yes, the package > > is installed, but now what? > > > > What is really needed is to install both the package and a configuration > > package. Eg: > What advantage do you see to splitting out the configuration for samba? Are you thinking that nfs and samba could use the same configuration scripts?
> The configuration should be handled by debconf in the postinstall script > of the package. For example, samba already uses debconf to gather the > standard information from the user (the workgroup). > I tend to agree with Mathias. > > Samba (Windows file sharing) -- task > > installs samba and samba-default-shares > > > > NFS (Unix file sharing) -- task > > installs nfs-kernel-server and nfs-default-exports > > > > Samba + NFS (Windows and Unix file sharing) -- task > > installs samba and samba-default-shares > > installs nfs-kernel-server and nfs-default-exports > > I think that three tasks is too much. I'd see only one task, named 'file > server', that would install both nfs and samba. I model this on the NAS > appliances you can find in the market: their features are that they can > serve both windows and unix clients and integrate well in your existing > network. I think it would be a mistake to install any services that are not specifically needed. I think it raises the risk profile of the system unnecessarily. I don't think we are trying to compete with NAS appliances. I personally see samba and nfs as separate tasks. I think samba is more important, because it is more likely to be used by novice admins. > > > Obviously, the samba-default-shares and nfs-default-exports packages > > need to be created. They could start off very simply by creating a > > read-only share available to class A, B and C addresses, or could be > > more complicated and have debconf ask questions about ro/rw, the name of > > the share, who can connect to it, etc. > > These are the type of configuration questions and management that needs > to be done with a higher level interface (such as ebox). > I think some CLI would also be useful. Ebox comes with lots of requirements that you might not want installed on your fileserver. I think this is something to think about for Gutsy +1. None of this could be added for Gutsy. We can only add tasks for functionality that already exists. So the question is: Could we get anything useful out of a samba tasksel task with the current packages? > May be we should define what's the goal of a task in tasksel ? I think > it's a way to install a group of packages so that the system can be > configured more easily. > > -- > Mathias
pgp9USTHGveRl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
