On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 02:56:01AM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
>
> Also, I oppose the idea, that part of the scripts in /etc/init.d are
> conffiles and part of them are not. I want consistency and a plain
> simple scheme (the current one is "init scripts are located in
> /etc/init.d and are conffiles. Period.").
agreed.
> Why would it be easier for the admin to modify these two values in an
> external file instead of the init script? You make this statement, but
> what do you have prove for it?
the only dubious argument i have seen is that when you change that
single variable dpkg will need to ask you what to do about the script
if the maintainer updates it (which IME is quite rare)
the more i think about it the more i think even a config.d is not
really a good idea. it really does not solve the upgraded script
question since the script may change in such a way that obsoletes or
changes the config.d file. so nothing is really gained. i've decided
that even a simple config.d system is not worth it (where only
variables are in the separate file.) and the twisted mess Christopher
suggests is most certainly a bad idea.
> IMHO, leaving them in the init.d script makes more sense. To see what
> effect they have on the code, I just scroll down. I don't have to open
> another file. I don't see what I gain if they are in another file.
precisly.
> This ("and everything you need to do can be done from there") is an
> constraint, that I don't see met. You can never say "oh, nobody will
> ever want to change this script".
"640K should be enough for everyone" (yeah yeah that is supposedly
fictional)
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpxQ2BeRt2AM.pgp
Description: PGP signature