On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:19:01PM +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote: > On Friday 02 March 2007 13:00:14 Axel Thimm wrote: > > OK, let's quote the FHS again which repeadedly lays great emphasis on > > keeping /usr read-only (or possible to mount read-only if you prefer), > > and not only from configuration files. > > Let stop that useless flame. Where is the flame in the above? And where is the stopping? ;) > I *agree* that FSH target, about /usr, is to allow /usr to be mounted > read-only. > > But "read-only" and "configuration files" are not correlated at all. When the > administrator modifies a config files (I mean with an editor), it is > an "admin operation", like an upgrade. I repeat: I have known some machines > with /etc/ mounted read-only! So? Every other embedded device has /etc read-only. What do we really learn from that? > Every admin-operation on a partition can require remounting it > read-write. It includes upgrades, but also modification of config > files. > > However, I agree that every config file of the system should have an instance > in /etc, so that host-specific stuff can be used in that config file. I am > not arguing on that point. I just wanted to spot out that your reading of the > FSH is not correct. Well, you objected on me saying On Thursday 01 March 2007 14:30:57 Axel Thimm wrote: > Anyway personally I only care about removing %config from /usr, any > solution will do. So, are you back with me, now? And my reading of the FHS is fine, but if we're agreeing on banning %config from /usr we can close this, I can live with your opinion on my reading skills. ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpwChNgd2uKf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
