Re: Downgrading the priority of nfs-utils
On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Roger Leigh <email@example.com> writes:
Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server
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
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
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... :-)