Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 15:41:53 -0600 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, jkh@time.cdrom.com, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com Subject: Re: Sup's Freefall-centric tree conventions Message-ID: <v0213050facf0ff6dbc24@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>Justin T. Gibbs writes: >>B) One portion of the files describe the user's end, another describe the >>server. >>There will be multiple servers. Each of them should (I would say MUST) >>have the same structure. Joe User should be able to reference anyone of >>them by simply changing the server address. (Frankly, I would prefer that >>the server address be set in the first line and automatically remembered >>until it is changed. That would reduce the customization to a single >>point.) > >The only thing that must be the same on all servers is the location of >the collection information (/home). Not the location that I would choose. Here, remember that we are talking about servers that are likely to have significant demands to do multiple things. >SUP is flexible enough to handle either case. Here, we agree. The argument is about the "correct" default configuration. > I'm just trying to handle the default case the best way. There is >nothing "ego-centric" about the approach at all. Yes, there is. It is very ego-centric to think that there is only one source. That kind of thinking is just what has created the mess that "make world" is in. The correct solution is to link your source tree to the library reference version of the distribution, if that is what you want. Sup is a mechanism to maintain the reference copy. It does not support local modifications well. To try to use it as if it does leads the unsophisticated to trouble. >>I want to run 2.1-RELEASE, but sup both -stable and -current to decide what >>changes I wish to integrate into my system. This is typical of the "joe user" who should not be editing supfiles. He should not trash his working source just because he decides to look at a current version of some source tree. > Further, I will be a supserver for others for both -stable and -current. However, I admit that this is not. However, maintainance of the supservers should also be made painless. True each admin has the knowledge to customize, but remember that he does not want to spend the time to do so. The "stock" solution needs to "just work". That way, when someone adds another line to the files, the admin can just use the revised file and be up-to-date. >Why? They are only "example" supfiles, designed to handle the generic case. Bad design. "Examples" should be replaced by "defaults" that work. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v0213050facf0ff6dbc24>