On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:57:32AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 23:53 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Yes, I know. This needs some TLC but it's not getting it until after > > sarge goes out the door (as I said to myself over a year ago :P ). > Hehe, that's been my standard excuse for the past year as well. > However, now that sarge is officially frozen (and potentially releasing > in a week), it's a good time to start moving on stuff. Not until it actually releases. > I disagree. Actually, I don't particularly feel the message needs to be > displayed at all; a README.Debian stating what still needs to be done > would suffice, I would think. There are plenty of packages out there > that require the admin to finish configuring things, once installed; we > don't need debconf prompts for them all. If there were no debconf configuration I would agree with you. The fact that NIS almost certainly won't be usable after install even though some configuration has been done using debconf makes it worthwhile for me - as soon as you do some configuration you create an expectation that the package will have come up configured. > > To be honest I'm not terribly convinced it's worth adding much to the > > debconf configuration of the NIS package. The server configuration > I certainly agree messing w/ /etc/passwd and friends is a bad idea. > However, doing as much as possible for the user would be beneficial. > This means setting yp.conf in addition to defaultdomain. Equally well, providing the user with a substantial amount of debconf configuration (even if 90% of it is at low priority) but then failing to actually make the package operational would make for a rather irritating user experience. Obviously, there will be some users for whom the current situation is fine since they don't use NIS for authentication or user database but they will be in the minority. > > Something like RedHat's authconfig which provides an integrated > > interface to the configuration of the system databases and > > authentication seems like it would provide a much more usable user > > interface as well as standing more chance of being robust. > I can't say I've played w/ authconfig. As discussed on IRC it's an integrated interface to configuration of all authentication related stuff. It's not suitable for use in Debian as is, I'm more suggesting it as an example of the sort of UI it would be good to present. > However, I did notice > update-passwd; I wonder if that can't be used to sanely deal w/ adding > necessary entries to the passwd/shadow/group files. The idea of trying to do it at all scares me, frankly. As discussed on IRC it might be possible to get a limited subset that only works for creation of compat entries during install. > I'm talk to kamion > about it, since it looks like it'd need some additional work to handle > nis entries. Please keep me in the loop on any such discussion. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
