Re: Question on conf files
On Tue, Jul 07, 1998 at 01:11:48AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
> > Michael Bramer <michael@grisu.weh.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> > > If this true, then we must move a lot of files from /var/lists/*,
> > > /var/named (and more?) to /etc/<package>/
>
> > Yep. For example, as far as I can tell, most of /var/named should be
> > in /etc/named. Symlinks from /var could, of course, be provided for
> > backwards compatibility...
>
> I don't know if I agree with this. To start with, we must distinguish
> between secondary zones and primary zones. Secondary zones are really
> cache data, so should probably go into /var/cache somewhere.
ok.
> Now primary zones, which I assume is what you are talking about
> primarily (pun), are really databases. Should databases go in /etc?
> I think not. Sure, there's a fine line between a database and a
> configuration file. But I think zones are on the database side of the
> line.
>
> Quoting http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-5.html:
> | /var contains variable data files. This includes spool directories and
> | files, administrative and logging data, and transient and temporary
> | files.
>
> My reading shows that named zone databases should go in
> /var/state/named. However, the existance of /var/nis and /var/yp make
> me think that /var/named makes more sense, and of course is in line
> with historical practice. Can anyone enlighten this issue further?
ok. I understand. On this view the place is ok. The zone 'database' is no
system-config file.
But what is with /var/lists/*?
Grisu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: