Re: policy for shipping sysctl.d snippets in packages?
On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:09:26 +0200, Christian Seiler
<christian@iwakd.de> wrote:
>And as I said in other places in this thread: I personally
>think that the separate /usr <-> /etc scheme is much better
>than just storing everything in /etc, so I would really
>prefer if as much software as possible would switch to that,
How would you expect the case "local admin has copied over the file
from /usr to /etc to apply local changes, and a new package version
changes its defaults so that the service wouldn't run with an
unadapted configuration any more" to be handled?
The Debian way will handle this through conffile managent or ucf,
making the local admin immediately aware of the changes, while the way
you advocate would make the admin end up with a (probably silently)
failed service, broken by a simple package upgrade.
And I am not yet bringing the case where the package maintainer fixes
a security issue by a configuration change in the game.
>[1] This is _not_ systemd. systemd introduced an own scheme via
> /usr/lib/binfmt.d + /etc/binfmt.d, which no package in Debian
> sid or stretch currently uses.
>
> And note that binfmt-support has always worked that way, for
> at least 15 years, way before systemd came around.
Having configuration in /usr without a possibility to override it via
/etc is a policy violation, isn't it`
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: