Re: /usr vs. root was: /etc /usr/etc
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Vadim> The division goes like this: if the program puts its config
> Vadim> files in /usr, they must go into /usr/etc; if the program puts
> Vadim> its conffiles on the root partition, they must go to /etc.
> So, we decide on placing files dependeing on where the
> upstream sources put their files? This does not sound like a sound
> technical policy to me. Remember, most authors do not write with
> Debian's file system discipline in mind.
Nobody said we would keep the upstream source location...
> >> I think that a major flaw in this proposal is that the division of
> >> conf files into machine local and site wide depends on the site it
> >> self (is emacs configuration site wide? No, since only the doc guys
> >> want to spend time setting up auctexand sgml.
> Vadim> You have user's .emacs for it. It must depend on the user, not
> Vadim> on the machine one is working on.
> No, I have 500 people on the documentation group and we all
> use machines XXA to XXZ. I don't want all 500 to continue making
> changes as the requirements of the group change. On the other hand,
> the 15,000 developers do not want auctex on the system. Not site
> wide, but a section of the site. The only solution that worked for us
> (make thet secretaries and undergrads) was rdist, not second guessing
> the local configuration.
This would be addressed by either of my solutions using a path. Let's
say XXA to XXZ are group 'auctex', the confpath would be
/etc:/usr/groups/auctex/etc:/usr/etc, or similar.
Surely it doesn't handle all possible overlapping groups settings;
solution "3.b", namely the "file inheritance scheme for directories"
hypothetical ext2fs hack would even restrict us to
But it's still better than nothing, and maybe sufficient.
Yann Dirson <email@example.com>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .