Re: query about /etc
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> OTOH, an /etc/share doesn't sound like a bad idea for normal Unix
> programs, and seems much easier to run rdist on than selected
> entries in /etc. I think the FHS (and thus policy) could reasonably
> recommend the use /etc/share/* in this way. Unless there's some
> prior art that suggests other locations, I guess.
Well, if you believe in the concept, then /etc/share wouldn't be the
right name. "share" in a directory name unfortunately has the meaning
"architecture-independent static data" somewhere else: /usr/share and
/usr/local/share.
Here, you are suggesting that "share" mean "shared among many machines"
in the context of the configuration files of /etc.
[Ignoring the issue of the name] Because /etc doesn't inherently have a
hierarchical structure and *any* file in /etc can be shared (via rdist,
NIS, NFS and symbolic links, etc.), I think you're better off trying to
simplify site-wide configuration some other way. rdist is a good
example.
What might make sense is tools to make it easier to "rdist-ify" a set of
configuration files in /etc.
[Getting off topic] The real problem is the lack of a consistent and
hierarchical configuration system in Linux (and other Unix systems).
Every configuration file has a completely different format, it is
difficult to organize (and then use) institution-wide, campus-wide,
building-specific, machine-specific, etc. parts of the system
configuration, and distribution of configuration information throughout
your site is needlessly difficult. All of this should be easy.
- Dan
Reply to: