On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 10:08 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > It seems to me that the reason for an NFS-mounted /usr is to be able to > update all systems at once. At one time, it was to conserve disk space > too, but the cost of disk is so cheap now, it has become a non-factor.
Somewhat redundant for update purposes too, I think. We run a cluster of Red Hat boxes at work, and just use cfengine to push updates out to them as needed. That's actually preferable for us, since it's easy to temporarily prevent updates to an individual machine if you want to test something new without affecting anyone else. > That seems to be a practical approach. I do read the LSB mailing list > and there are some discussions about being a trailing standard and not a > leading standard, but I have lowered my opinion of LSB overall. It > would appear to me that the LSB exists primarily to allow proprietary > software to be installed on multiple distributions. I wonder how many such developers actually care about supporting multiple distros? I guess it matters for desktop-oriented software, but speaking as an enterprise-app developer, it's not at all important to us. We certify whatever our customers want, which when it comes to Linux, means Red Hat. > On the other hand, I see that Ubuntu and other distributions are using > upstart instead of sysvinit. Perhaps I'm set in my ways, but I don't > really see an advantage. Perhaps it speeds up the boot process when you > have hundreds of drivers built as modules and need to test them all each > time you boot, but that is generally not an issue for LFS users. Ubuntu is using upstart, Fedora is now using systemd, not sure what others are doing. But from what I understand, the concept for both is similar - to replace sysvinit with something that a) deals with dependencies, b) can start stuff in parallel, and c) provides consistency across distros to aid 3rd-party developers. Although until the distros agree on *one* sysvinit replacement, the consistency argument is somewhat moot. I agree, not all that necessary on a base LFS system. But I've read a bit about systemd, which makes use of newer Linux features like cgroups and namespaces, and it's interesting. Maybe not essential to me, but interesting. Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
