Re: Proposal: /etc /usr/etc /usr/local/etc
On Mon, 7 Jul 1997, Bill Mitchell wrote:
> This revisits the transname proposal. It looks to me
> as if it was incompletely understood. I've added comments
> inline below to clarify my understanding of this proposal.
> (Of course, it's always possible that I misunderstand)
>
> As I understand it (see my inline comments) this proposal
> sounds workable to me, but it also sounds messy. Is this
> proposal still alive, or does everyone consider it dead?
Excuse me, but I'd consider it dead. It's too ugly and too hard to
play with and too messy (like having the remote /.../etc directory
with <number of machine-local conffiles> multiply by <number of hosts>
plus <number of site-wide conffiles> config files, and putting too
many symlinks inside, and mounting it read-write)... I don't think
it's worth to think about. Although, we have enough mount-points
(/usr and /home are already two, and some have more) to consider
/etc.
Yann's solution is simple, clean, nice and sexy. Transname solution
is IMHO (not to offend you) hard, dirty and ugly. And it requires us
to wait for a new kernel.
Vadik.
--
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: