Re: Proposal: /etc /usr/etc /usr/local/etc
> Excuse me, but I'd consider it dead. It's too ugly and too hard to
> play with and too messy (like having the remote /.../etc directory
> with <number of machine-local conffiles> multiply by <number of hosts>
Well, you obviously don't understand how it works. You can have *one* /etc
disrectory for all x machines on your network, with x
/etc/filename#host=hostname# files. I had 2 machines using nametrans,
and there were a total of 30 files of this type in /etc and all the other
files in /etc were the same for all machines. That's not too many, is it?
You say it's "ugly and hard to play with" - why? I find forests of symlinks
much uglier and harder to maintain than a few filename#host=x# files.
> plus <number of site-wide conffiles> config files, and putting too
> many symlinks inside, and mounting it read-write)... I don't think
> it's worth to think about. Although, we have enough mount-points
> (/usr and /home are already two, and some have more) to consider
You can boot diskless and have one mount point: /
> And it requires us to wait for a new kernel.
No it doesn't, it's been availalbe as a patch for 2.0.x since sometime last
(Here ends my contribution to this thread.)
see shy jo
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .