On 28/09/01 Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 04:25:36PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > No, please reread my previous mails: I claim that people will abandon
> > debian, if we only support chrooting bind via mount --bind and not
> > offering alternative at least for users of kernel 2.2.x.
> yes that is absurd.
> lets look at this:
> people see debian only supports chrooted bind on 2.4 kernels because
> of mount --bind, they can do either:
> a) manually configure a 2.2 capable chroot for bind manually.
> b) be irrational, dump debian, and configure a chrooted bind manually.
> now what exactly did switching distros buy them?
No, but why should I stick with a linux distribution on my server
systems that was just able to create a bind chroot with mount --bind,
depending on latest kernel features? For a server system, I want a
distribution or os, that doesn't depend on the latest kernel features,
but instead depends on well-known and tested features, like using
cp,rsync or something else to build a chroot and keep the files in sync.
And so switching the os or distribution would give me a os, that doesn't
depend on the latest kernel feature for the chroot, but instead have no
bind chroot, but instead the possibility that I create the bind chroot
like I want/need it.
> > At least I would be upset if I install a bind package which just offers
> > to chroot itself when I use kernel 2.4.x and not when I use a kernel
> > 2.2.x. That would offend me and make me look for an other distribution
> > where either I get full support for chrooting bind or completely do it
> > manually, independent from the kernel version.
> so i assume you are offended that woody cannot support moduler 2.0 kernels.
Don't make wrong assumptions. And by the way, I could have still a copy
around of an old modutils that would work with 2.0.x kernels.
Christian
--
Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
Attachment:
pgpccF5sJes0S.pgp
Description: PGP signature