Your message dated Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:03:05 +0200 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: Bug#68789: master/slave mode for dpkg has caused the Debian Bug report #68789, regarding master/slave mode for dpkg to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected] immediately.) -- 68789: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=68789 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: dpkg Version: 1.6.14 Severity: wishlist Hallo, I like to have a master-slave software installation. That does mean that all the software installation process and holding of installation data is on the master, while the actual packages are installed on the slave. Both machines may be connected via TCP/IP. This would be useful for installing several similar machine configurations, or even mass installation. Also it would be useful for "embedded" systems, to save a few MBytes. For example the master may have all the slaves package information in /var/lib/dpkg-master/<slave>/ instead of the slaves /var/lib/dpkg/. Of course, the slave has to have some kind of deamon (dpkgd?), so that the scripts {pre,post}{inst,rm} can run on the slave. I don't know what impact this idea has on apt and debconf. Cheers, -- W. Borgert <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---tag 68789 wontfix thanks Hi! On Tue, 2000-08-08 at 18:27:53 +0000, W. Borgert wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.6.14 > Severity: wishlist > > I like to have a master-slave software installation. That > does mean that all the software installation process and > holding of installation data is on the master, while the > actual packages are installed on the slave. Both machines > may be connected via TCP/IP. > > This would be useful for installing several similar machine > configurations, or even mass installation. Also it would > be useful for "embedded" systems, to save a few MBytes. > > For example the master may have all the slaves package > information in /var/lib/dpkg-master/<slave>/ instead of the > slaves /var/lib/dpkg/. Of course, the slave has to have > some kind of deamon (dpkgd?), so that the scripts > {pre,post}{inst,rm} can run on the slave. I don't know what > impact this idea has on apt and debconf. My initial reaction to this, is that it's too complex to implement in dpkg itself, I think if this is desired it should be done somewhere higher. Also there's already few software options to manage clusters. Just checked if there was any discussion about this in debian-devel (as it got CCed) and found the answer from Colin Watson [0], which I agree with (the NFS option being the one that came to mind immediately after reading this bug report). I'm marking as wontfix and closing directly as I don't see this being implemented in dpkg. regards, guillem [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2000/08/msg00396.html
--- End Message ---
