[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FC2 and FC1 and common home

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:


>   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...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]