On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:22:22PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 00:18:49 +0200
> RalfGesellensetter <rgx@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > About pxe and/or etherboot, there is another suggestion (see below).
> >
> > But if there is anybody who could fix dhcpd.conf (and as I get it,
> > cvs access is not enough, but Ragnar has to change it before
> > ltsp-stuff is built, right?), in future,dhcpd.conf should point to a
> > symbolic link that can be bent when kernel versions change, something
> > like
> >
> > vmlinuz-current
> >
> > - would this be reasonable?
sounds like an excellent idea to me.
> Sounds like you must make sure then that the chosen tftp-server (or
> all - if tolerating several different ones) supports symlinks.
in my experience, both tftpd and tftpd-hpa work with symlinks, as long
as the symlink does not point outside of the the scope that tftpd is
allowed to access (some tftpd's can be run chrooted). i haven't tested
atftpd, but in many ways is more sophisticated than either of the
others, so i'd be surprised if it failed.
with older versions of etherboot (5.0.10 and older) built to skip tftp
entirely and just use NFS(which is not the default), i occasionally
experienced problems with symlinks.
> > The other suggestion stems from Andreas Schockenhoff, and goes like
> > this:
> >
> > "Alas, pxe-enabled etherboots can not be detected from old ones by
> > means of the pxe-string. But you can help yourself by means of the
> > etherboot version number. Of course it is better, to move entirely
> > to pxe:
> >
> > filename "/var/lib/tftpboot/pxelinux.0"; # Menu Test
> > if substring (option vendor-class-identifier, 0, 13) =
> > "Etherboot-5.2" {
> > filename "/tftpboot/lts/vmlinuz-2.4.19";
> > }
> > if substring (option vendor-class-identifier, 0, 13) =
> > "Etherboot-5.0" {
> > filename "/tftpboot/lts/vmlinuz-2.4.19";
> > }
> > # etc. "
> >
> > Now, again the question: can anybody with access to SVN edit these
> > lines in dhcpd.conf?
>
> Do you need an exception for Etherboot 5.2 and 5.0 that you do not for,
> say, 5.1 or 5.3?
>
> If not then don't look for 13 characters but only 9 and match them
> against "Etherboot".
i believe the need was to distinguish between etherboot versions that
support PXE booting and those that don't (exactly how that works is
beyond me), to reduce the amount of configuration needed.
live well,
vagrant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature