Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Steve Bowman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:20:32PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 03:43:07AM -0700, Steve Bowman wrote:
> > > > I think if you are going to use /usr/etc, programs should first check
> > > > /etc, in case the system administrator wishes to override the sharable
> > > > config file for the given host.
> > >
> > > This is a good idea for programs that live in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, but
> > > would require program support to check for configs in multiple locations.
> > > However, I suggest that programs living in /bin and /sbin MUST have
> > > their configs in /etc in case /usr is not available.
You are right there, everything thats needed to mount /usr must be on
/, but thats not that much.
> And here's the output file (tmp.pkginfo4):
Not needed at all by any program and very shareable.
Those are binaries needed to boot.
Must be present, but can be shared across a pool.
/etc/share/security would be a good place for them.
The same counts for several other files that folloed.
/usr/etc would not be the right place for them, becaue /usr might not
be present, but /etc/share would clarify the fact that they can be
shared and for nfs-root /etc/share can be a link to a commong
I think the diskless package should have a list of shareable files and
move them to /share/etc and link them in /boot-$IP/etc. Also most of
the files in /etc are shareable many must be present, so only for
diskless clients a linkfarm would make sense. On normal systems a
linkfarm in /etc would probably harm more than it does good.
May the Source be with you.
PS: Special packages that could/should realy go to /usr/etc are
excluded from this thoughts, but thats something to dicuss per