Hello Javier,
Am 2006-12-22 03:37:54, schrieb Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 06:51:58PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > No, it works, but since "portmap" is not more (since Sarge)
> > installed by default it need arround 60-300 seconds to mount
> > but after this time
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 06:51:58PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-11-07 04:40:21, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> > But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
> > /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install?
>
> No, it works, but since "portmap" is not
Am 2006-11-07 04:40:21, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
> /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install?
No, it works, but since "portmap" is not more (since Sarge)
installed by default it need arround 60-300 seconds to mo
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 02:06:04PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
> >I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more
> >except on restricted sets of computers.
>
> Er, here. Global NFS home directories. And at the last place I
> worked. And the place before that. Oh, actually
Tim Cutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Le jeudi 02 novembre 2006 à 05:22 -0800, Josh Triplett a écrit :
> I would suggest b); redu
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 02:01:11PM +, Tim Cutts wrote:
> I still use it on some real-world servers, but I can't now remember
> why. I definitely found something which only worked with the
> userland server.
uid mapping, perhaps?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
--
To
On 7 Nov 2006, at 11:17 pm, Brian May wrote:
"Goswin" == Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tuebingen.de> writes:
Goswin> But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
Goswin> /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh
Goswin> install?
Not really, no
On 7 Nov 2006, at 3:40 am, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,
On 6 Nov 2006, at 9:26 am, Josselin Mouette wrote:
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'
Le mercredi 08 novembre 2006 à 12:35 +1100, Brian May a écrit :
> Back on topic, is Samba included in the default installation?
A graphical SMB client is included as part of the desktop task.
--
Josselin Mouette/\./\
"Do you have any more insane proposals for me?"
signature.as
On Thursday 09 November 2006 15:57, Michael Banck wrote:
> I believe this (= standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX
> system) should be shoved into a task or even CDD. Or we could just not
> install those if people select "Desktop" during the install (the latter
> might be the case a
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 01:51:33AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the default installation.
> It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential:
> yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX
> system,
I belie
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
>
> Then perhaps you shouldn't be changing a winning team? ;-)
Who are you referring to?
>> This in practice means almost the same. If it is selected by default
>> only very few users
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 09:19:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> NFSv4 is still an RPC-based protocol; as with any RPC-based protocol,
> the server is listed on the portmapper along with a protocol version
FWIW, NFSv4 no longer needs the portmapper.
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:35:37PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Miles" == Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Miles> [Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in
> Miles> that it's fixed some of the most egregious "nfs
> Miles> bogosities"?]
>
> I have been told
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:17:55AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Goswin" == Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Goswin> But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
> Goswin> /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh
> Goswin> install?
>
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:50:09AM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential:
> > yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX
> > system, including things like a work
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the default installation.
That might be.
> It's not the bare minimum to make the system work (that's Essential:
> yes). It's the standard stuff that everyone expects to be on a UNIX
> system, including t
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 08:47:27AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> All things considered I'd rather have nfs, even in it's horrid
> traditional form, than nothing.
Luckily, NFS would be only one apt-get away.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
* Brian May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061108 00:32]:
> I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more
> except on restricted sets of computers.
If "restricted set" includes the whole company network at one location,
then that matches my experience as well ...
Cheers,
Andi
--
Matthias Julius wrote:
> I would guess that most people who install a linux system don't need
> NFS.
>
Donno. I use it on all my systems, home and otherwise; how else would I
mount file servers...
> And actually, NFS us not required to run Debian. Do I don't think it
> needs to be in the defa
> "Miles" == Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Miles> [Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in
Miles> that it's fixed some of the most egregious "nfs
Miles> bogosities"?]
I have been told NFS 4 has nothing in common with NFS except the name,
and its reputation
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The university here is opening up for Kerberos-enabled NFSv4 from the entire
> campus network RSN. Now you know one :-)
[Isn't nfs4 rather different than previous versions, in that it's
fixed some of the most egregious "nfs bogosities"?]
I use
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 10:17:55AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> I would be more surprised if it did work. NFS has a reputation of
> being insecure.
Try Kerberized NFS :-)
> I am not aware of any organisations, big/small, that use NFS any more
> except on restricted sets of computers.
The university
> "Goswin" == Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Goswin> But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path
Goswin> /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh
Goswin> install?
Not really, no.
I would be more surprised if it did work. NFS has a re
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 10:49, Matthias Julius wrote:
> But, I am not sure whether you can count them all as individual
> installations as many of those probably get installed on one system
> and then copied to another. And they are managed by only a few admins.
Preseed is your friend. It's ex
Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install?
Because it's the standard GNU way of doing this kind of job?
> The majority of the Debian (and GNU/Linux systems in general) I see
> tend to not use NFS at all.
I guess there is truth in this statement.
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
But, I am not sure whether you can count them all a
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 packag
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
There is this:
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=nfs-utils
But I don't know how accurate the "
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 *de
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> It has recently come to my attention that nfs-utils (which is priority
> standard) cannot depend on ucf, since ucf is of priority optional.
>
> I can only see four solutions for this:
>
> a) Ignore the problem for etch, figure out what do to afterwards.
> b) Downgr
33 matches
Mail list logo
