Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian
Hi,
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
> Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>
>>Who's the one choosing his preferred configuration format based on the
>>limitations of his preferred packaging system here? Hint: it's not Red
>>Hat.
>
> *yawn*
>
> When you've got something constructive to add to Debian development,
> let us know. Until that point, please go away and stop trolling.
Please don't take me wrong, but I think (this time) Uoti wasn't
missing the point (although the way he worded his concerns was
certainly not accurate). I think he was referring to the specific way
you described the situation, which seemed rather dogmatic.
It's true that we the way we have always done things is "configuration
belongs in /etc", as you described. It's also true that we have tools
to work with that assumption, such as ucf. Contrary to what Uoti
implied, ucf is not even part of the packaging system (it's used in
maintainer scripts), but yea, it's part of our basic packaging
toolset.
Also contrary to what Uoti said, I don't think the reason why people
like Steve do not like this new way to handle config files is because
of limitations in our tools. I don't think that statement makes any
sense at all, actually (what limitations in our tools are we talking
about, after all?).
I've seen people mention that the way udev and systemd do config files
is really motivated by limitations in RH's packaging tools. Maybe
that's the case, maybe not. Does it really matter? I'd much rather see
Steve explain why this way to handle config files is worse than the
traditional way. It doesn't matter if it's great for RH or anyone else
really. It's not relevant at all. It's just silly.
Regards,
Reply to: