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

Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils

On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

Roger Leigh <rleigh@whinlatter.ukfsn.org> writes:

Josselin Mouette <josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org> writes:

Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit :
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.

Perhaps it's time I installed popcon on the 1000+ Debian systems I maintain as part of my job... :-)


Reply to: