Re: More Linuxconf Stuff
I have spent some time digesting the information that you
forwarded from Jacques Gelinas <email@example.com>. I am commenting
on the mail message below.
However, I feel that Linuxconf is a wonderful, flexible,
configurable config-and-boot system. But it ay not work for us. We
have been doing a lot of the work that Linuxconf does (portably, too,
it seems), but not compatibly. In order to fit into our current
scheme, which has done some of the things that Linuxconf does (but by
no means all), we would have to seriously restrict Linuxconf
(lobotomize come to mind), and that may be hard work (removing enough
functionality from Linuxconf so that it works transparently with our
Looking at Linuxconf, though, I think you should propose that
we junk the current setup, and go with Linuxconf. Linuxconf does seem
to add the level of configurabilty to systems operation that we have
brought to modular upgrades. If it is as good as the proponents
claim, it would be worth it, and may well give us the edge we need.
If you do put in such a proposal, download and include the
features web page http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/linuxconf/features.html,
as well as the examples and excerpts from Jacques Gelinas
I might even support you on that. I still have misgivings
about mixing and matching.
1) linuxconf is optional
2) It coexists with current init methods
Here, rc.boot should be modified to include a call to
/sbin/askrunlevel, and /etc/init.d/rc should call /bin/netconf
What do these scripts do, I wonder? is askrunlevel
interactive? if netconf exists on the machine, we seem to bypass all
the scripts in rc.d (unless netconf later call them, after looking at
dropins. Hmm. Synchronizing the rc.d and netconf methods could be
3) The process is reversible, i.e., it is just as easy to remove
LinuxConf as it is to install it, without hosing the system
Ok, so Linuxconf can generate my sendmail.cf (unlike what the author
claims, our config scripts seem to generate sendmsil.cf just
fine). What about IP aliase? In anycase, if you remove linuxconf,
sendmail.cf should remain, so that is not a problem.
What I'm still aprehensive about is that linuxconf does something
(unique features, the man said) unusual, and ``some features do not
activate''. Lots of angry users may be the result of this -- but I'll
defer to the will of the developers here.
4) We don't scrap init in favourof the LinuxConf activator
``linuxconf does not replace /sbin/init''
``linuxconf does not replace init. This person has no idea what is
``It is a seriously better.'' (example of how linuxconf saved the day.)
6) We should not have to modify dpkg (hah!) or seriously modify
``Mostly, for each package, do provide another file which
will be droped in /etc/linuxconf/control in the same way to drop a new
file in /etc/init.d''
This is a change (maybe minor) in the packaging policy.
7) a config tool should be *only* a config tool.(IMHO)
[advocacy of the Linuxconf activator]
I'm slightly concerned that Linuxconf's view about ``informations
which has no counterpart to most unix systems''. Debian, too, in not
like most unix systems, and there may be a mismatch here. I have no
idea how easy it is to fix.
"I don't believe in god because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com