Re: (REPOST) user-specific package configuration information
In message <[🔎] 20010704152416.M3112@think.thunk.org>, Theodore Tso
<tytso@mit.edu> writes
>On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:11:56AM -0700, sandy pond wrote:
>>
>> I really don't expect the present scheme to last forever.
>> Someday the users home directory will be split from the
>> location where user-specific configuration information is
>> stored. The sooner this is done the easier it will be.
>> Ultimately, this may be the best justification for doing
>> this now when there is a good opportunity.
>>
>
>Personally, I really doubt that. Existing practice is that "dot
>files" don't show up in directory listings, either via /bin/ls or via
>graphical file managers. So they don't really "clutter" the home
>directory. And by being in the user's home directory, they're easy
>for programs to find, and easy for system administrators to back up.
>On top of that, there is the entrenched history to consider. So I
>believe the likelihood of this changing in the near future is small.
.files don't clutter the home directory? That's your practice and
default. When I type "ls", it's almost always the "ls -al" variant, and
.files make horrendous clutter. Unfortunately, also, I am forced to use
doze at work, so I set Explorer to ignore the "hidden file" flag - it
causes me horrendous grief otherwise... (which may explain why I always
use the "a" flag for ls...)
>
>The question you raise is much like one of whether individual files
>should be in /etc, or in directories. i.e., /etc/exim.conf,
>vs. /etc/exim/exim.conf. To say that packages's should *always* be in
>a directory, even when they have a single rc file, is not necessarily
>going to be viewed as reasonable. Many people will seriously dislike
>sucuh an arrangement. They will point out, correctly, that the
>difference between having a single file ~/.foorc and having a deep
>structure such as ~/.foo/foorc doesn't reduce the directory listing of
>"ls -a" much, and needless makes the directory hierarchy more complex.
>
>So the issue is much more complicated than you make it out to be....
>
Why not simply say that personal configuration should be ~/etc/, whose
structure mirrors that of /etc/?
That way - firstly the files *aren't* hidden - hidden files are a damn
pain! Secondly it addresses your comment about ~/.foo/foorc (though
you've missed the point here - ~/.foo/whatever is no improvement on
~/.foorc which the OP wanted to move away from :-) I've got no problems
with ~/etc/foorc or ~/etc/foo/rc - whatever the packager wants.
And thirdly, and from my point of view extremely useful, I don't have to
learn two different layouts for config files, ie the variants in /etc
and ~
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999
Reply to: