David Zeuthen wrote:
There's the bad idea that everything under /etc/ is configurable, but in
reality these rules are "program data" and ideally should go into /share
if that existed (which would avoid people thinking they're meant to
touch that stuff, hopefully).
I'm having trouble parsing that statement. Are you saying that people
shouldn't be able to edit their own /etc/xxx files as documented by the
upstream programs or that the distribution should move the parts that it
modifies with its internal tools elsewhere?
Lots of files under /etc are not marked as %config or %config(noreplace)
and they are not really configuration files. It's a problem because
novice users just assume they can and should edit such files and then
they get confused when said file is overwritten on a package upgrade.
Does that make more sense?
It doesn't disambiguate the situation unless you are saying that local
administrators should not touch any files. How does a (novice or not)
user know which files belong to him but are delivered as working
defaults and which will be clobbered by subsequent updates? I thought
most of the point of splattering stuff under /etc/sysconfig was to have
a place to put distribution-tool managed bits without too much impact on
standard, documented config files as they would work in other distributions.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
