Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian
George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 10 May 2012 19:53:18 Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > The reason why most old applications do not follow that approach (at
> > least not yet) is pretty obvious: their authors never considered it.
> > etc-overrides-lib semantics have only become a seriously considered
> > alternative fairly recently.
> Implying that a fairly simplistic semantics of providing two distinct
> directories with configuration files, has never been considered for the last 40
> years and painting it as a revolution in the application development is naive,
> at best.
Someone certainly has considered it during the last 40 years. But most
people creating applications did not consider it when deciding the
default semantics of their application. Do you really want to seriously
Your remark about "painting it as a revolution" seems to be completely
> > configuration format and 2) saying Debian should choose its preferred
> > configuration format based on the limitations of its packaging system,
> Let me tell you a secret: Debian should not decide whether or not tens of
> thousand of applications follow a particular style of reading their
> configuration files. This is in the realm of application development and anyone
> should be free to choose their style. It would be a segregation if Debian bans
> applications simply because their style of reading configuration files looks
> funny... and Debian does not segregate. This is not a secret.
Did you read what I was originally replying to? It talked about
symlinking the /lib and /etc directories to the same one. Debian would
not "ban" the application, but it _was_ about overriding the upstream
choice of configuration model.
> > You're pretty much just saying that dpkg and helpers like ucf have
> > implemented better functionality than rpm. I don't see how that's
> > relevant to the discussion. I don't think it makes the above comparison
> > any less valid. And generally, I don't think the packaging system issues
> > would be so difficult that they should have a major influence on what
> > configuration model to use.
> What I was saying, I already wrote. Retelling it wrong is useless.
If you had some other point, it wasn't clear. And your reply certainly
does not clarify anything.
If you still want to reply, try to include more factual content or