On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 11:34 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 15:35 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > I didn't say DConf, or the current GConf implementations were good, I > > said that one-small-file-per-config-option is absolutely unworkable. > > What's this /proc/sys/ thing... Um, that's a filesystem yes, but you cannot compare it to on-disk filesystems. /proc and /sys are memory-backed and thus don't suffer from the limitations that Bastien refers to. Dan > Yes, current filesystems are not optimized for lots of small files. But > absolutely unworkable? That's absurd. > > > As for propagating new defaults, or mandatory options (like GConf is > > able to do), I don't see how a one-file-per-option would solve that > > problem. > > You solve that problem the way it's been done for decades. Config files > in /etc/ that override anything the user sets. The on-disk format isn't > even relevant to this particular problem. > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
