[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information



On 4 Jul 2001, sandy pond wrote:

> Date: 4 Jul 2001 00:52:43 -0700
> From: sandy pond <sandy_pond@altavista.com>
> To: venom@DarkStar.sns.it
> Cc: tytso@mit.edu, lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
> Subject: Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information
> Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:53:18 +0200
> Resent-From: lsb-discuss@lists.linuxbase.org
>
> Hi Luigi,
>
> > >(3) Often, dot files are shared between
> > > multiple packages.  Examples include .newsrc, .mime.types, and so on.
> > >
> > mainly the third point is really strong, even more than the second.
> > Modern sysetm will have more and more applications, exspecially isf
> > they are used interactivelly by users, and if every application has
> > to have its own .<config file> inside of the users home, and there is no
> > way to share the most of them, it's going to be
> > very difficoult and disordered situation for sysadmins and users too
> >
>
> I think your point is well taken.  But I also think
> that future integrated programs that need to share
> lots of configuration information will provide
> their own mechanism.  The GNOME GConf is
> an example of this movement and also goes to
> highlight the inadequacy of the present scheme.
>
Anyway, you will EVEN have to deal with traditional Unix Application, and
the tradizional way they do things.

For example, do not pretend emacs to change its $HOME/.emacs, because
it is working this way on EVERY Unix, and there no reason why
it should behave differently with Linux.
But this is not a strong point, since emacs is one application.
Just thonk to all news readers using .newsrc.
Future integrated programs are just a part of the Unix world.
Thanx God unix is unix almost everywhere, and ls is ls since decades.
So I am not thinking new applications are going to replace so
easilly the good working traditional ones.


> However, aside from this, I believe that Ted's 3rd
> point can easily be worked around with several
> possible alternative, provided of course, there is
> adequate interest in curing the present (and still
> growing) mess.  For information purposes, my
> home directory currently contains 39 file and
> directory entries for user-specific configuration
> information and is growing daily.
>
Which kind of alternatives are you thinking to?

bests
Luigi Genoni




Reply to: