Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Richard Kaszeta <kaszeta@me.umn.edu> writes:
> Martin Schulze writes ("Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?"):
> >Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
> >> Just a quick inquiry --
> >>
> >> Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND
> >
> >Because configuration belongs to /etc. Period.
Good point, but etc blows up to quite a size and can´t be shared
across hosts.
...
> 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.
Apart from /etc/mtab (which can be linked to /proc/mounts) normaly
nothing gets written to /etc and / can be ro. For diskless systems
/usr/etc and /usr/share/etc could reduce the size of the ramdisk or
root fs needed to boot and more data could be shared across a pool.
Alternatively /etc/share/, /etc/arch and /etc/local could be
used. Just as one likes.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
Reply to: