On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 22:47, Jeremy Katz wrote: > But this isn't really all that ideal from an interface point of view. I agree. It is kind of a one-time special case though. > Why should this be handled separately from the rest of the questions > about my partitions? I'm also trying to move to less dialogs, not > more. Some thought is definitely required. Another option would be a > special-case of preexisting /home getting mounted with the context mount > options, but I don't really like that other (it feels like a hack). That's an option, but it is a little tricky. We'd have to be sure to give every domain that the user runs access to that type; e.g. right now ssh will refuse to look at a key unless it's user_home_ssh_t. > No, that's completely and utterly manual. How do I scp to them? for machine in foo bar baz blah; do scp policy.15 $machine: done ? > I've > written the expect script to do this sort of thing before and it's not > really what you want to use in an environment of any size. If I have to > at all touch a machine to make a trivial and common change like this, > then I'm not really centrally administered. You could also have a polling model or something where the machines check for updates from the central server. I don't see what's wrong with push though...
Description: This is a digitally signed message part