Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 12:10:54AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> So, does anybody still see reasons to continue supporting a standalone
>>> /usr?
>> There had been lots of responses to that.
>
> Yes, the most repeated argument has been mount /usr via NFS.
> Unfortunately, nobody yet explained how do they update the resulting
> cluster of machines.
>
> Of course the problem is that if you update on the NFS server, then
> related /etc and /var files [1] will not get updated on the NFS client
> machines and you need to propagate changes there. I see as quite
> pointless to use "let's export /usr via NFS" as an argument, if Debian
> does not provide a way to make that setup tenable.
8-/
I really don't see the problems, and BTW debian provide also some tools.
- On large parallel systems, people use something more than a base debian
console installation.
Usually on net you have a complete copy for root, var etc
(in case of compromised computers. Very handy instead of reinstalling the
system)
So it is easier also to have a rsync script (without some dirs)
And on infrequent security update where data format change,
let sysadmin implement a tool to update such numberous systems.
But such case is seldom.
I really think that *most* debian machines are done in this way
(because such systemns have huge number of debian machine, and
debian is a very good distribution for such setups)
- on homemade systems, Debian provide tools like apt-cron and
other automatic update tools, which solve all problems
(if one use only one distribution [like stable]).
Also in this case, heuristic tell me that when we requires
removing of a package, it is because it is substituted by
an other, so no problems (when all systems are updated
nearly at the same nightly time).
It seems not a usual case that sysadmins remove packages
from a single machine.
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
