Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
David Bristel <email@example.com> writes:
> On 5 Oct 1999 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > Config files are, by their nature, host-specific, and should not be in
> > > /usr
> > They are not. e.g. /etc/hosts should be the same across a pool. Nearly
> > all files in /etc can be shared and none should be rewritten on the
> > fly.
> This is what NIS and NIS+ are for, to share these files across
> hosts. A lot of UNIX derived systems end up modifying the normal
> placement of files because a few people feel they have a "better"
> way to do things. The end result is the mess /etc has become over
> the years. I would LOVE to see /etc become configuration files
> only, with NO binaries in there at all. To be able to do an rgrep
> in /etc to find a config, and never have binary "garbage" fly across
> the screen would make life a LOT easier. Programs such as gated
> which install themselves in /etc as the default also drive me crazy.
Isn´t that against policy? Binaries should allways go to [s]bin
directories. In some peoples eys even the shell scripts in etc are
wrong, but they are inbetween config and binary.
> Now, back on topic, if you need to share a file NIS/NIS+ will work.
> Someone else may have a better solution, such as Samba.
The problem is that NIS does not work, crashes, fills a lot of garbage
int /var/log until linux crashes, has strange behaviour and is pretty
useless for a pool of diskless maschines.
Think about a pool of 100 diskless terminals all having a copy of
/etc/resolve.conf and many other files in etc. Now consider changing
the nameserver for the terminals. Its a problem of space and
administrativ work that makes me want a /usr/etc or
/etc/share. At the moment one has to copy the shareable files to
/etc/share and symlink them in /etc.
May the Source be with you.