Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
In article <87btaba7q4.fsf@mrvnbook.intern.lin4net.de> you write:
>> This is what NIS and NIS+ are for, to share these files across
>> hosts. A lot of UNIX derived systems end up modifying the normal
>> placement of files because a few people feel they have a "better"
>> way to do things. The end result is the mess /etc has become over
>> the years. I would LOVE to see /etc become configuration files
Here you seem to indicate that you don't want executable files
in /etc - I agree and think this is in policy.
>> only, with NO binaries in there at all. To be able to do an rgrep
>> in /etc to find a config, and never have binary "garbage" fly across
>> the screen would make life a LOT easier. Programs such as gated
But here you say you don't want any non-text (I will use that
word, as binaries seem to indicate executable files) in /etc.
Which one are you refering to?
>> which install themselves in /etc as the default also drive me crazy.
>
>Isn´t that against policy? Binaries should allways go to [s]bin
>directories. In some peoples eys even the shell scripts in etc are
>wrong, but they are inbetween config and binary.
Not config non-text files (eg data files that are not executable). Very
few programs do have binary files under /etc. postfix is the main one.
Not to mention compressed rotated configuration files (apache and bind
on my computer).
The there is a file /etc/ioctl.save - I don't know what this is.
I think /etc is the most appropriate directory, unless you want to argue
For /usr/etc or even something under /var.
I would argue that /etc/mtab and /etc/ioctl.save should really belongs
under /var (unless you symlink /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts).
>> Now, back on topic, if you need to share a file NIS/NIS+ will work.
>> Someone else may have a better solution, such as Samba.
>
>The problem is that NIS does not work, crashes, fills a lot of garbage
>int /var/log until linux crashes, has strange behaviour and is pretty
>useless for a pool of diskless maschines.
It works reliably for me.... I always thought that a pool of
diskless machines was where NIS was its best...
>Think about a pool of 100 diskless terminals all having a copy of
>/etc/resolve.conf and many other files in etc. Now consider changing
>the nameserver for the terminals. Its a problem of space and
>administrativ work that makes me want a /usr/etc or
>/etc/share. At the moment one has to copy the shareable files to
>/etc/share and symlink them in /etc.
Agreed. Although my diskless package doesn't require a symlink, it
requires every host to be updated (via an automatic routine) which isn't
exactly fast...
However, resolv.conf might be required before /usr is mounted
(especially if /usr is on a seperate NFS partition - this is no longer
the case with my diskless package, so it would be OK). How would you
cope with that?
Please correct me here if I am wrong: resolv.conf can't
be shared via NIS???
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
Reply to: