Re: systemd .service file conversion
On 30-05-13 22:36, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>>> And it is still completely inferior even to dpkg-conffile handling,
>>>> which has huge wishes left open as well.
>>
>>> False. The message you replied to already listed advantages over
>>> dpkg-conffile handling. This was also already discussed before:
>>> https://lists.debian.org/<1336580040.28230.9.camel@glyph.nonexistent.invalid>
>>
>> We've had this discussion a lot. There is an ongoing technical
>> disagreement of opinion about the tradeoffs.
>
> While there is room for reasonable disagreement about the relative
> benefits of different configuration setups, "completely inferior even to
> dpkg-conffile handling" is not part of any reasonable disagreement. That
> claim is simply false.
No. That claim is an expression of opinion. Marc believes that
dpkg-conffile handling is superior to having defaults in /usr/lib (or
thereabouts) and only overriding those from /etc. You disagree with him,
which is certainly your right. However, you are neither more nor less
correct than Marc; you are both correct. That's the problem about
opinions: they're not technical.
FWIW, I happen to agree with Marc. Having everything in /etc makes it
*much* clearer what the actual current configuration is; it also means
that if the defaults change on upgrade, your environment doesn't
suddenly start acting differently or inconsistently.
Both are reasons (though certainly not the only ones) why upgrading
Debian is feasible (and the rule rather than the exception), while
trying to upgrade a RedHat machine is only for the crazy.
--
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space.
If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you
will not go to space today.
-- http://xkcd.com/1133/
Reply to: