Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs

[thegeezer]

On 15/10/14 04:14, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Grant Edwards
> <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@××××××××××××××.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The main problem (imnho) is that you think CentOS cares about
>>> configurability/multiple ways of doing things.
>> Oh, I don't think that -- it's pretty obvious that in the RedHat
>> world, choice is not an option.  It's one prix fixe menu, and you can
>> either eat what's set in front of you or go hungry.
>>
> I can see the potential benefits of that.  It sounds a bit like the
> whole convention over configuration approach.  As long as the
> convention works, it does greatly simplify things.
>
> One thing I do like is the trend towards putting default configs in
> /usr and using /etc more for overrides.

you should have a look at unionfs or aufs -- what you can do is have an
initram that mounts /etc from lvm-stock-etc and then unionfs with
lvm-custom-etc
this allows you to have a standard lvm layout everywhere and then only
need to rsync the lvm-custom partitions
if you are feeling really fruity could use network locations for the
stock locations and an sd card or small storage for the custom partition

> If everything went that way
> (and we stuck stuff like /var/lib/portage/world in /etc) then you
> could have an /etc with 20 short files in it that reflected all the
> tweaking you did to a system from a generic install.  Sure, I love
> config protection and etc-keeper and the like, but I'd like it still
> better if etc wasn't such a mix.
>
> I'd really love it if I could dump 20 files in /etc and run emerge
> -uDNv world and end up with a system identical to the one those 20
> files were copied from.
>
> --
> Rich
>