At 02:21 PM 5/29/98 -0500, David Engel wrote:
>On Fri, May 29, 1998 at 05:28:15PM +0300, Shaya Potter wrote:
>> The last time I e-mailed the author (about a week ago), I was trying to
>> peruade him to modularize all the "admin" parts of linuxconf, so we would
>> essentially have a linuxconf-base, and we could have seperate packages for
>> things like linuxconf-sendmail, linuxconf-dns, linuxconf-samba..... This
>How tightly dependent are the modules on the rest of the linuxconf
>source? More specifically, is it practical to have a linuxconf-dev
>type package so modules could be developed separately? The reason I
>ask is that if linuxconf prooves worthy and was standardized on,
>wouldn't it make sense to eventually move the modules into the
>packages they actually supported to avoid version skew problems.
John has already answered on the part of problems with modules compiled for
one version of linuxconf running on another version. To answer the second
part, about putting the modules into the packages they support.. This would
be difficult if we wanted to maintain pristine sources, i.e. sendmail would
have to include the sendmail and linuxconf source; bind would have to
include the bind and linuxconf source....
On the configuration front, linuxconf supports a central machine configuring
many dependant manchines, this might help us with our efforts at unattended
installation, if we can set up our scripts to use linuxconf to query the
server to get the appropriate information. I don't know if that's possible,
it might be a good feature to have added to linuxconf.
If we do decide that we want to go with linuxconf, it might be a good thing
to spend some of our money on to get the features we want in it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org