Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
Roger Leigh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> writes:
>> Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 Ã 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a Ã©crit :
>>> I would suggest b); reducing the "standard" set of packages seems like a
>>> feature, it won't break upgrades (if installed, the package will stay
>>> installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part
>>> of the *default* install.
>> We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a
>> working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default
> What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install?
> The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see
> tend to not use NFS at all. Do we have any usage statistics for the
> NFS client?
But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
/local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install?
And I'm not sure that you are right with your majority claim. A lot of
larger installations use nfs and they quickly add up to a lot of
systems rivaling the rest of the user base in numbers.