Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 03:49:02PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> Why should I bring my httpd down? Why should I bring my named down? Why
> should I bring my database down? Why should I bring anything down?
[snip ranting and raving and further irrelevant examples]
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:38:24PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:16:28PM -0400, you wrote:
> > > I do often have backup roots on the system--so that I can reboot
> > > without being physically present at the machine. The minimal requirement
> > > when a backup root is available is that:
> > >
> > > 1. rebooting is OK
> >
> > You have yet to justify why that's the case. Repeating it still doesn't
> > make it true.
The point wasn't that rebooting is ok. The point was that the use of
sash and a backup root disk does not involve rebooting. What I've been
trying to get across is that there are ways to accomplish what you're
after using tools that already exist under debian. You want to rearrange
debian so it does things the way that other systems do them, because
you're more familiar with those methods. That's fine for your system,
but isn't sufficient justification for changing defaults that can
already accomplish as much or more. If you want to argue that debian's
documentation on these matters is lacking, I'll agree and I'm sure that
any input would accepted. But I will not accept arguments that debian
should change its procedure unless you can demonstrate a case where it
fails when used correctly.
Mike Stone
P.S. If I haven't been clear enough, this is how I expected to use the
backup root:
(fstab)
/dev/whatever /root_back ext2 ro
the extra paranoid could have several variations on the above.
Reply to: