On Saturday 07 January 2006 03:18, C. Gatzemeier wrote:
> Hi cobaco,
>
> one of the points wanted a specific package to be an "owner" for a given
> configuration file. Maybe this could be made unnecsessary.
>
> "Only the admin is the owner of configuration files" might have been one
> of the ideas behind the current config file policy. With the outcome that
> config files should not be touched.
every file that isn't created by the admin must have an 'owning' package
IMO, this is not a problem in any case, unless you have an owner that's
effectively going 'hands of everyone', thus prohibiting configuration
packages from automating those configuration changes in a policy-compliant
manner.
(the only option a 'hands of'-owner leaves us is cfengine or similar tools,
whose invocation we can't automate according to policy, see for instance
bug #311188)
> One thing CDDs would like however is a safe way to manipulate those
> files. I have been trying to compose a wishlist for this thing not only
> from an CDD view.
>
> The CDD config issue might be solveable without a policy change, I am not
> even sure if a policy change would really help.
Well having modularization/multilevel config recommended in policy would
help in the following ways IMO:
- it would encourage maintainers to look at the issue, and establish it as
recommended practice
- it would also raise any request for such from wishlist to minor,
normal, or important (as it's a should directive). This will make it less
likely for maintainers to just dismiss the request out of hand.
> Note the "configuration modifier" (for all desired options) and
> "modularisation" that the proposed changes would make required.
recommended not required, note the 'should be done' instead of 'must be
done'
> The "configuration modifier" is the key here IMHO, and could also provide
> modularisation for non modularized configs.
I agree that any configuration manager prerably would provide modularization
somehow, however such a beast is not in widespread use, which means there's
no way we're gonna get that into policy at the moment.
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpsKENJWQaHk.pgp
Description: PGP signature