On Mon, 18 Jul 2011, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 18.07.11 15:13, Simo Sorce (simo@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18.07.11 20:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp4x4@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 2011/7/18 Neal Becker <ndbecker2@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > > This article recommends ending /etc/sysconfig
> > > > >
> > > > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Generally speaking I like the idea of dropping /etc/sysconfig. I think
> > > > the right way it keeping minimal, standardized configuration in
> > > > /etc/services.conf/ or something like that.
> > >
> > > No. There is no need for a directory that replaces /etc/sysconfig. It's
> > > borked. If a daemon has not configuration file but should have one, then
> > > fix the daemon, don't fake a configuration file.
> >
> > Some daemons cannot be "fixed", get over with this mantra that daemons
> > need be fixed Lennart.
>
> Hmm? Which ones in fedora can't? Are you suggesting we are shipping
> software that cannot be modified? If so, please explain which one that
> is, since we need to remove it from the distro then. Fedora only
> includess Free Software, and software that cannot be modified would not
> qualify as that.
>
I'd suggest we're shipping software that doesn't need to be modified,
doesn't need to be "fixed". Saying those daemons need to be fixed is like
saying a pregnant woman need to go to the hospital to be cured.
Pregnancy and /etc/sysconfig are perfectly natural and healthy. Pregnant
women and /etc/sysconfig both have perfectly valid use cases and do not
need to be "fixed" :)
-Mike
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
