On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 09:09 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote: > On 05/13/2009 02:29 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > It's come up in the review of a package I have submitted that there is > > no guideline for /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500437 > > > > My understanding is that these are not really config files. End users > > should not be editing them. Many of the packages that have files in > > there do not mark them as config. Some packages do. I suppose they > > could be edited by end users, but I wouldn't think it would be very > > common or desired. > > > > Should we have a guideline for them (or add to an existing one)? > > > > Should the be marked config or not? > > > > Should they not be under /etc/ at all? > > These look to me more like resource XML files than actual configuration > files. As such, they are probably more suited for /usr/share/dbus-1/ > (which already contains a bunch of other xml files). That seems like a very weak argument ("the look similar to other files in that other location") to make a change that will cause a bunch of needless packaging churn... > I would not block a review on this though, /etc contains a lot of > "pseudo" configuration files like this (GConf schemas for example). From > an upstream project perspective, they are configuration files, but from > a Fedora desktop user, they are not meant to be modified... Exactly. This is a big problem with the whole '/etc is for config' stanza: whats configuration from the dbus daemons perspective is not necessarily configuration from the distro or user perspective. The only thing users can achieve by 'configuring things in /etc/dbus-1/system are a) Break their system by preventing the sending of messages that are needed for a working system b) Opening security holes by allowing the sending of messages that the shipped dbus policy was meant to prevent Matthias -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
