| 1 |
Le samedi 01 mars 2014 à 10:06 -0600, William Hubbs a écrit : |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 06:48:54AM +0000, Steven J. Long wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:31:08PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 09:47:05PM -0500, Wyatt Epp wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > But let's be real here: if I install something and |
| 6 |
> > > > want to configure its system-wide bits, the first place I go is ALWAYS |
| 7 |
> > > > /etc. When I don't find it there, with the rest of the system config |
| 8 |
> > > > files, my day gets a little worse and I lose a bit of time trying to |
| 9 |
> > > > interrogate a search engine for the answer. And that's annoying. |
| 10 |
> > > > That sucks. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > This hasn't changed. |
| 13 |
> > > The configuration files these packages are putting in /lib are not |
| 14 |
> > > meant to be edited; they are the package provided defaults. If you want |
| 15 |
> > > to override one of them, you do that in a file with the same path and |
| 16 |
> > > name in /etc, like I mentioned in another message in this thread. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > The problem, as has been explained many many times, is that the rest |
| 19 |
> > of the config is somewhere random on the system. But you knew that, |
| 20 |
> > right? You were just telling a half-truth, effectively. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> No sir, I was not telling a half-truth. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If the default configuration is stored in /lib/udev/rules.d for example, |
| 25 |
> and you can override that default by dropping files of the same name in |
| 26 |
> /etc/udev/rules.d, I don't see what the concern is. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > I for one prefer a distro to do a bit of work and make my life easier, |
| 29 |
> > since it makes life easier for everyone who uses the distro. Why the |
| 30 |
> > hell should I care if some bindist can't etc-update? WTF does that |
| 31 |
> > have to do with Gentoo? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> With this method, you don't need to etc-update, so I would say that in a |
| 34 |
> way this is easier. Your system-admin-provided files in /etc are not |
| 35 |
> owned by the packages, just the files in /lib are. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> > If I wanted a shitty distro that didn't bother to do anything at |
| 38 |
> > all, I'd use LFS. At least they don't pretend, then fall over themselves |
| 39 |
> > to do a crap load of work rather than admit a mistake; that hey, y'know |
| 40 |
> > what? Some of those things from 30 years ago were a damn good idea, |
| 41 |
> > and maybe just maybe, they worked some of these issues out back then, |
| 42 |
> > so we could stand on their shoulders instead of digging through |
| 43 |
> > their garbage. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> I'm not totally against keeping things from the past. It is just a case |
| 46 |
> of evaluating those things and seeing whether they are still relevant. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I think the biggest issue here is that if the filename changes or the |
| 49 |
setting that is overridden changes, then end-user or sysadmin is the one |
| 50 |
that will suffer from settings not being applied and not knowing why. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
This already happened with systemd/udev and net rules for example and I |
| 53 |
am pretty sure in a couple of other packages but I have no other |
| 54 |
examples on the top of my head. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Sure at some point you have to make things evolve but this upstream |
| 57 |
solution simply isn't nice for its users. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 61 |
Gentoo |
Archives