Bug#548230: dropbear: configuration in /etc/<package> does not follow FHS
Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Jari Aalto wrote:
>> The problems in the package were identified as follows:
>>
>> (1) /etc/dropbear/run is an executable
> There's nothing wrong with having executables in /etc, so long as they
> are not binaries. /etc/dropbear/run is "a local file used to control
> the operation of a program",[1] so it's perfectly reasonable to have
> it in /etc.
>> (2) /etc/dropbear/log is a symlink pointing to /var/log/dropbear
> If /etc/dropbear/log is a file controling the location of the log
> files (and thus, controling the operation of the program), I don't see
> the problem with the FHS.
I agree. This type of configuration is the best way of handling software
run by daemontools or any of its variations that I think we've come up
with, and seems like a reasonable approach to me. (Better, for instance,
than putting all of the configuration into /var.)
>> 1) Symlinks
>>
>> I: Symlinks are "not real configuration files" as per FHS.
> The FHS doesn't address this point at all; while it may be problematic
> technically for VCS systems without support for symlinks, it's not
> precluded by the FHS. [And given how many symlinks are in /etc, (on my
> laptop, I cound 1430[2]), a VCS which can't handle it isn't going to be
> particularly useful for managing /etc.]
Yup. There are *many* packages in the archive that use symlinks in /etc.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: