Re: Proposal: /etc /usr/etc /usr/local/etc
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > The FSSTND is there as guide. As long as all requirements can be
> > solved cleanly following FSSTND, there's no reason to change it; but
> > if we find out that something can't be solved cleanly, then maybe it
> > will need to be changed...
> No argument from me. The central question in this case seems to be
> how to define "cleanly", and whether the solution presented in the
> FSSTND is "clean" enough.
I agree with you, and I agree that FSSTND's (what a word!) solution is
not clean enough.
> > Did I forget something ?
> If implemented by adding a new confopen() function to libc,
> solution (2) would require rebuilding a bunch of packages and
> would require negotiations about the changes with FSSTND maintainers
> and with linux libc maintainers (these negotiations might fail) if
> we're to avoid making debian a linux variant requiring linux-uncommon
> programming practices. To my mind, (2) would have to promise some
> very significant benefits compared with (1) to justify going through
> that, and I don't see such promise.
Don't add it to libc, please. Add it to the packages. And the
benefits are that you don't touch the root partition after
installation of new program in /usr, and you keep /etc as clean and
small as possible.
> My summary regarding (1):
> It's the currently mandated practice, Linux-wide.
> It's not broken, don't try to fix it.
I'm not trying to fix it because it's broken as designed.
Vadim Vygonets * firstname.lastname@example.org * email@example.com * 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
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .