On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 16:49 -0400, Mathias Gug wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:55:08PM -0400, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > > My thinking was that I didn't think the samba and nfs-kernel-server > > packages setup a working share out of the box. I admit I haven't looked > > at the packaging for these lately. I also didn't think that the samba > > or nfs package should setup this kind of share by default, because it > > could be annoying for an experienced sysadmin to always have to disable > > it or change it. > > > > If samba and nfs-kernel-server provide all the debconf functionality to > > get a working share, then you are absolutely correct to not want to > > split out the functionality. > > I think they provide the basic functionality. However you cannot setup a > share. I don't think that configuring a share should be done in the > postinst package. This is a task that can done multiple times by a > the sysadmin, on a daily basis. I'm not sure that dpkg --configure > should be used on a daily basis to manage your system. >
I agree-- I don't think it should be done in postinst either, which is why I thought a simple, small configuration package like samba-default-shares or nfs-default-exports *might* be appropriate here. My thinking would be that these packages would not be how you would normally administer the system (eg to add/remove shares), but rather to be used to create a simple share for users to use right away. Experienced admins wouldn't necessarily install these packages, but rather samba and nfs-kernel-server alone. Inexperienced could install these (or the tasks) in order to start working right away. It is *only* intended to get something up and running in a sane configuration quickly for the novice admin. Jamie -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IRC (freenode): jdstrand -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
