Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian
* Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [120511 16:17]:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:08:32AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
> > The FHS is very specific that /etc is for *Host-specific* system
>
> No, this is a total retcon. When the FHS was written, this was definitely
> NOT a shared understanding of a difference between "host-specific
> configuration" and "upstream defaults / distribution-specific
> configuration".
I obviously read more into "host-specific" than was intended.
> Distribution defaults still would go in /etc whenever it was expected that
> an admin might want to edit the file. This has been the convention for more
> than a decade.
Agree completely. See the next sentence.
> > Files containing distribution-specific defaults, whether they match some
> > definition of "configuration file" or not, do not belong here unless the
> > they are also intended to be edited by the local sysadmin.
>
> Yes. The issue is not that either system is a violation of the standard,
> because intent is relevant here. If the upstream *intends* the file to be a
> template that's overridden using a separate file, then /usr is the right
> place. If the upstream intends the user to edit the provided file to make
> their changes, it belongs in /etc. If the defaults are built into the
> binary, that's perfectly fine too.
I agree completely. I was responding specifically to the assertion that
the definition of "configuration file" from Wikipedia meant that Debian
"must" put files containing distribution-specific defaults in /etc,
regardless of whether or not they were intended to be modified by the
local sysadmin.
> What *is* an issue is when upstreams decide to ship their defaults in /usr,
> but require users to duplicate information between /usr templates and /etc
> config files and ignore the contents of /usr in favor of the contents of
> /etc. This is also not a violation of FHS, but it IS a crappy design.
Again, I agree completely. See the part of my message that you did not
include where I clarified to which etc-overrides-non-etc model I was
referring.
> When software is not able to override configuration *settings* with fine
> granularity via /etc, the entire thing should go under /etc. Doing
> otherwise makes this horrible for upgrades.
Absolutely. Again, see my clarification of how I was using
etc-overrides-non-etc. I did not go into what I think is wrong with
"default in /usr, copy entirety to /etc and edit in order to override a
single setting" because I was specifically trying to address the other
poster's assertion that placing anything that matches the Wikipedia
definition of "configuration file" anywhere other than /etc was a
violation of a "must" in Debian policy.
...Marvin
Reply to: