[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

ITP: diskless for NFS-ROOT tree structures.

Hello all,

I have previously posted this, but now I am an official Debian
maintainer (well... mostly), I thought I should repost a formal ITP -
Intentions to Takeover Planet ;-).

Package: diskless
Status: install ok installed
Priority: extra
Section: misc
Installed-Size: 283
Maintainer: Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Version: 0.1.6
Depends: libmd5-perl
Suggests: netboot
 /var/lib/diskless/template/group/rules 513072092ac33daf428e8f9063c0c806
 /var/lib/diskless/template/group/rules-master 285c23da0a45a5b8277d2cfdba99a78c
 /var/lib/diskless/template/host/rules e644d7e13596bb9c30649e0e9ad11559
 /var/lib/diskless/template/host/rules-master 334e4e9b88b3021a6d852db832c5e6af
Description: Generate NFS file structure for diskless boot.
 This package comes with two programs, diskless_newgroup, and
 diskless_newhost to simplify setting up and maintaining diskless
 clientsi NFS-Root file structure.
 These programs ask user friendly questions to aid configuration
 of the diskless system to the administrators preference.
 WARNING: This package may be confusing for the novice. It has only
 been tested on my configuration. Please let me know if there are any

There is one issue I am not 100% sure of - currently I use my own
file format, called "mbp" which is parsed to include the correct
configuration information in each /etc file for each host.

However, I don't particularly like this nonstandard format - although it
might be slightly simpler then m4, my prefence is to replace everything
with m4, as this should allow for unlimited expansion. I am not sure if
calling m4 will be slower or faster then directly calling a perl library
from perl code. What do others think about this????

I already have some primitive support for m4, as the config files are
now saved in m4 compatable format (not tested).

I almost did it for the current version, 0.1.6, however I found an
irratating problem with m4:

[504] [snoopy:bam] ~ >m4 badfile.m4  && echo OK
m4: badfile.m4: No such file or directory
[505] [snoopy:bam] ~ >m4 -E badfile.m4  && echo OK
m4: badfile.m4: No such file or directory

It doesn't return an error code when something serious goes wrong.
Should I file a bug against m4?

On one hand, everything is working to my now, however, on the otherhand,
if I choose to go to m4 later, I may break compatability with existing
config files (of course there is the option of supporting both...). What
do other people think???

Of course, I may be completely wrong in any of the above, so
please feel free to correct me ;-)
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Attachment: pgp6n6SWaCK_2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: