File Server Tasks

Michael Hipp Michael at Hipp.com
Wed Aug 29 21:20:48 UTC 2007


Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 16:49 -0400, Mathias Gug wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:55:08PM -0400, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> My thinking was that I didn't think the samba and nfs-kernel-server
>>> packages setup a working share out of the box.  I admit I haven't looked
>>> at the packaging for these lately.  I also didn't think that the samba
>>> or nfs package should setup this kind of share by default, because it
>>> could be annoying for an experienced sysadmin to always have to disable
>>> it or change it.
>>>
>>> If samba and nfs-kernel-server provide all the debconf functionality to
>>> get a working share, then you are absolutely correct to not want to
>>> split out the functionality.  
>> I think they provide the basic functionality. However you cannot setup a
>> share. I don't think that configuring a share should be done in the
>> postinst package. This is a task that can done multiple times by a
>> the sysadmin, on a daily basis. I'm not sure that dpkg --configure
>> should be used on a daily basis to manage your system.
>>
> 
> I agree-- I don't think it should be done in postinst either, which is
> why I thought a simple, small configuration package like
> samba-default-shares or nfs-default-exports *might* be appropriate here.
> My thinking would be that these packages would not be how you would
> normally administer the system (eg to add/remove shares), but rather to
> be used to create a simple share for users to use right away.
> Experienced admins wouldn't necessarily install these packages, but
> rather samba and nfs-kernel-server alone.  Inexperienced could install
> these (or the tasks) in order to start working right away.
> 
> It is *only* intended to get something up and running in a sane
> configuration quickly for the novice admin.

Just my opinion. I think the time would be better spent developing a 
config/admin tool targeted at the new admin. It would be a more general 
purpose solution and could become more capable over time.

What we /don't/ need are a bunch of handholding GUI apps. If someone is 
to grow past the "inexperienced" label, they need to get used to the 
idea that servers don't run GUIs. Something with a curses interface 
would be ideal, methinks.

Again, just my opinion(s).

Michael Hipp




More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list