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 package will stay >>> installed), and new installs don't need to get nfs-kernel-server as part >>> of the *default* install. >> >> We're not talking about the NFS server, but of the NFS client. And a >> working NFS client is surely something we want as part of the default >> install. > > What's the rationale for needing it as part of the default install? > > 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?
But wouldn't you be surprised if "mount -tnfs server:/path /local/path" suddenly wouldn't work anymore in a fresh install? 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. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]