Subject: Re: use of share vs lib
To: None <tech-pkg@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 08/01/1998 13:09:50
[ On Fri, July 31, 1998 at 11:23:10 (-0400), Perry E. Metzger wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: use of share vs lib
> Using /usr/pkg/etc/ pretty much precludes sharing /usr/ on multiple
> machines if the config files in /usr/pkg/etc are machine dependent,
> aren't they? (remember, /usr/ is supposed to be sharable within an
Huh? Not if /usr/pkg is a separate mount point, and/or if another
filesystem is mounted on top of /usr/pkg on the client. Also remember
the mountd(8) -alldirs flag (which brings up the issue of the NFS export
security model being broken -- or at least backwards w.r.t. -alldirs and
the inability to export only a specific sub-directory which is not a
filesystems mount point). And don't forget loopback mounts too!
Some people might argue that packages should be installed uniquely on
each client (which certainly makes sense if you consider that
/var/db/pkg will normally be machine specific too).
I tend to prefer though that *all* configuration files should go into
/etc, all log and spool files should go in /var, and that there should
not be any /usr/pkg/etc or /usr/local/etc or /usr/*/var.
BTW, I'd much rather have /pkg and /local -- unless you stick to the
ancient premise that multi-user related stuff should all be under /usr,
because there's not enough room for them on the boot disk. I.e. if
you're going to use separate filesystems for separate purposes then you
should likely create /usr, /var, /local, /pkg, /home, and so on, and
otherwise you should just create one big /.
However these sorts of problems can be worked around with the likes of
loopback mounts and symlinks if one really wants to keep /etc and other
system supplied directories in their pristine state.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>