Re: `du' control files
Hi,
>>"Christian" == Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
Christian> Let me summarize this discussion so far: There is a good
Christian> use for the `du' control files but there isn't yet a script
Christian> to do something useful with these files, right?
Doing the du when one does not know the setup on the
target machine is useless. I think that if at all required, the tool
should look into /etc/fstab (on the end machine), find out the mount
points (following symlinks and all) and then run du on the package.
Failing that, the du options are just a half hearted attempt,
and should be shelved until a decent solution can be drafted.
Impleent first, design later only leads one into a strait
jacket with very limited available courses of action.
I think people shall find that trying to design a tool may
significantly alter the current half-baked approach.
Christian> If so, I suggest that we silently accept the du files for
Christian> now, just as we do with the md5sums files (which aren't
Christian> required or even mentioned in the policy manual).
This is entirely up to you. I see no significat advantage to
having them in, and I feel they are a waste of disk space, but disk
space is cheap, and we can afford to squander it.
msnoj
--
Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: