On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 00:56, Remco Treffkorn wrote: > On Wednesday 03 November 2004 03:11, Iago Rubio wrote: > ... > > > > Again, I will advocate to avoid central failure points for the whole > > system, just for the shake of "it will be great for newbies". > > > > ITOH hiveconf scares me less than the Linux Registry does. > > With all due respect, but this smacks like you have not even read the info > about Elektra. I did, it's not the frist time it arrived this list. I was not speking about Elektra as a single failure point but about hiveconf. > Would you care to explain how Elektra is a "central failure point"? You sniped my message taking out the line I was answering. Read it and you'll see I was speaking about hiveconf. I'll not explain what I did not even said. ITOH as you ask me to explain my thoughts, hiveconf scares me less because it uses application's configuration files and will not drive anybody to use a fixed configuration scheme, and a fixed configuration files' layout on disk. It also scares me, because it's a central failure point for the whole system. About Elektra, I don't know how will it fit in chrooted environments. But technical matters apart, Elektra could be a good idea but I don't spect rapid doption by upstream developers, and maintenance of all config packages elektrified will require a huge patching effort. Sysadmins will not be happy to change their sendmail configuration files that have been around for years. So to get a chance for adoption, you should also code the conversion of old config files to elektra - a "hiveconf" layer between old configs and elektra. Once you get this done and you get elektra adopted by upstream developers of important packages, it's time to advocate for the inclusion in a distro. Right now, I don't think redhat folks have time to expend in the enourmous task of elektrify - and maintain elektrified - the whole fedora, even if they'd think it's the best idea in years. It should be adopted by upstream developers. -- Iago Rubio
