On Friday 02 March 2007 12:43:31 Paul Howarth wrote: > Laurent Rineau wrote: > > I really what a discussion. You may convince me and Ralf. But give good > > reasons. AS far as I understand, the FSH does not state that sitewise > > config files cannot be in /usr, and as far as I understand, the FSH > > states that sitewise config could not be in /etc (be cause /etc is host > > specific). What is wrong with my interpretation? > > I believe that site-wide configuration files may be kept under /usr and > that this falls within the description of /usr in the FHS. However, as > packagers we do not know if admins using our packages will be wanting to > configure them on a host-by-host basis or a site-wide basis. Since it's > likely that at least some admins are going to want to configure packages > on a host-by-host basis, does it not follow that packages should *not* > place configuration files under /usr, at least unless such configuration > can be overridden by another configuration file elsewhere such as in /etc? I agree with you. In an ideal word, I would have preferred that any configuration file that has a meaning in a site-wise configuration exists in both /etc/ and /usr. For example, /usr/lib/openoffice.org2.0/share/psprint/psprint.conf (from openoffice.org-core) should be marked as %config(noreplace), but there should also exists a similar config file in /etc. (Actually openoffice.org packages, in FC-6, do not have %config files at all.) -- Laurent Rineau http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
