Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> >Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> The more I think about it, the more I suspect that the correct solution
> >> would be to just symlink /lib/udev/rules.d/ to /etc/udev/rules.d/ and so
> >> on.
> >Please don't. As a user, I find it highly preferable for packages to
> >install their default configuration in /lib and just have overrides in
> >/etc, and I'd love to see that trend continue. That setup lets me
> >trivially construct personal configuration packages that ship the
> >overriding files in /etc, without having to play ugly games with
> >dpkg-divert of conffiles. It also means that I don't get a pile of
> >noise in etckeeper from all the upgrades of default configurations, so
> >that my commits to etckeeper primarily consist of my own local changes.
> No, really - please *do* do this. The fact that a lot of the software
> coming out of RedHat development seems to be designed solely for their
> use, including working around the missing/broken features of RPM, is
> seriously annoying. Configuration belongs in /etc, we know this. We
> have a well-designed and implemented set of tools in Debian based on
> that standard.
Machine-specific configuration belongs in /etc. The default behavior of
the tools doesn't.
Josh Triplett provided multiple technical reasons why etc-overrides-lib
is preferable. The ONLY technical reason you gave to prefer traditional
conffiles was that there already is a "set of tools" for that in Debian.
Who's the one choosing his preferred configuration format based on the
limitations of his preferred packaging system here? Hint: it's not Red