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

Re: Proposal: /etc /usr/etc /usr/local/etc

On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:

> J.R.Blaakmeer@student.utwente.nl writes:
> > I don't know much about other unices, but I think you will never get your
> > wishes to be the standard. Who is to decide which configuration file is
> > site-wide? I can imagine that some people would want a local config file
> > for some program where you would want to have a site-wide config file. I
> > still believe that the system with symlinks is the best way to do this.
> Sorry, but I do think my idea of using somewhat a path for conffiles
> is (in theory, at least) a bit more satisfying; and that practically,
> the alternative of tweaking the file-system would be more viable.

Yann, I agree with you.  Symlinks are bad in this case.  I started
this whole proposal to stop tweaking root file system with every
global (/usr) installation.  The simple standard idea of conffile
somewhere in /usr (it seems that Borik doesn't like the name /usr/etc,
but what's the matter, we're not talking about names right now) is
just great for me, but many people seem not to like it for some
reason.  Dunno why.  I'm a Unix sysadmin, so I know how they do it,
and I hate Debian's ignorance of matters of large networks with shared
/usr.  But your solution, Yann, is just fine: I'll stop shouting, and
the people who want local alternatives for site-wide conffiles will
get their weird option.

> > Maybe dpkg should ask at installation time if a config file will be
> > computer-specific or site-wide. In the case of a site-wide config file it
> > would place a diversion for all files in /etc to /usr/etc and place the
> > right symlinks. The script I mentioned above would update all
> > workstations. Of course this behaviour of dpkg would be a feature that
> > has to be turned on or else everyone who is using Debian on a standalone
> > computer will be asked those questions every time. And of course the
> > question would not be asked again if a package is upgraded to the next
> > version.
> IMO, in this case it would be better to have dpkg install everything
> as site-wide, and use a seperate program to switch conffiles between
> site-wide and machine-local. (BTW, AFAIK, such a scheme would
> integrate smoothly in a Red-Hat-like "control-panel" (or whatever they
> call this ala-M$Win window with just a column of awfully large buttons :)

First of all, everything should be site-wide except of what's
machine-local (i.e. depending on hardware, IP, the role of the machine
in the network (am I a mailserver?) and other things normally found in
/etc (don't tell me about binaries, I'm not too twisted)).  And then,
how will you switch conffiles?  By symlinks somewhere?  Excuse moi,
but Yann's proposal is nice for you who want to switch it.


Vadim Vygonets * vadik@cs.huji.ac.il * vadik@debian.org * Unix admin
The fish doesn't think, because the fish knows...  everything.
	-- Arizona Dream

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: