Re: systemd .service file conversion
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On 30-05-13 22:36, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> > 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.
Calling something "an opinion" does not make it valid. It may be
someone's opinion that 1+1=3, but that's simply false whether it's "an
opinion" or not.
> Marc believes that
> dpkg-conffile handling is superior to having defaults in /usr/lib (or
> thereabouts) and only overriding those from /etc.
To begin with, that's comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing the
behavior of the packaging system on upgrades to the behavior of the
application in use. The most plausible way I can construct something
reasonable-sounding from your text is the comparison "application
default config in /etc and user modifies existing files to configure;
dpkg-conffile handling of those files on package upgrades" vs
"application default config in /usr/lib and user can add files to /etc
to override everything or just particular options; package upgrades
always simply update files in /usr/lib to new version with no other
special action for configuration". Now you could have different
reasonable opinions about the tradeoffs in these two cases, though
"completely inferior" would still be exaggerated hyperbole at best. But
this comparison does not match the original context of the discussion,
where application behavior by itself was criticized. Obviously the
application is not responsible for what Debian packaging does on
upgrades, and the package upgrades could easily behave differently.
If you want to post your opinion about a controversial topic, at least
you should do a better job of phrasing exactly what it is that you're
claiming. If people don't agree to begin with, you shouldn't expect them
to make all the same implicit assumptions you do. And here it seems more
like sloppy thinking where even you yourself hadn't thought through your
assumptions.
Also, these issues were already covered in the thread a year ago (and
your post doesn't look like you'd have understood the arguments there
but disagreed).
Reply to: