Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On 15/10/14 04:14, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel a...@alectenharmsel.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
[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On 2014-10-15, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel a...@alectenharmsel.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. The main benefit is it makes the support scripts far simpler to write. The sooner you can get to I'm sorry, that's not supported, the sooner you can hang up and handle the next customer. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! Did you move a lot of at KOREAN STEAK KNIVES this gmail.comtrip, Dingy?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:14 AM, thegeezer thegee...@thegeezer.net wrote: On 15/10/14 04:14, Rich Freeman wrote: 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 That could potentially work, but it has some problems: 1. Updates will get applied to the unionfs, so it will gather untouched files over time. That is, unless you unmount the unionfs before doing updates (which could be difficult if the system is otherwise operational). 2. If you modify one line in a file in /etc, the entire file with the modification will be present in the unionfs. Using the split /usr - /etc approach usually requires application support as both configuration files need to be sourced, with specific settings in /etc overriding those in /usr, but any unmodified settings being taken from /usr. Many (most?) packages do not support this. -- Rich
[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards at gmail.com writes: In order to do some software testing (having mostly to do with different init systems), I installed 6 distros yesterday and this morning (I already had both 32 and 64 bit Gentoo/Openrc systems installed). I'm more convinced than ever that Gentoo is the way to go for my real systems... You might find this page interesting, if You have not seen it before: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems James
[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel a...@alectenharmsel.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. They do not. They have their packages and their way of doing things, following TUV so that the distro is easily supportable. When installing, you just have to keep clicking next like a robot. I'm more convinced than ever that Gentoo is the way to go for my real systems... Definitely agree; any systems that I spend a substantial amount of time using run Gentoo. Nothing else is equal. I mostly run it on my home server because I want it to Just Work (tm) without any work on my part. It also prevents me from playing around too much with USE and other things, which is another bonus as I get more work done ;) And you avoid being forced every couple years to choose between a major version upgrade (which invariably turns into to a minor disaster) or reinstall from scratch (which usually turns out a little better, but requires that normal work stop for several days). -- Grant
[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On 2014-10-15, James wirel...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards at gmail.com writes: In order to do some software testing (having mostly to do with different init systems), I installed 6 distros yesterday and this morning (I already had both 32 and 64 bit Gentoo/Openrc systems installed). I'm more convinced than ever that Gentoo is the way to go for my real systems... You might find this page interesting, if You have not seen it before: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems No, I hadn't. For the immediate future, it looks like I'm going to have to support upstart, systemd, openrc and generic sys V init. A lot of distros manage to maintain some level of backwards compatibility with sys V init scripts, but that level seems to be falling. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel a...@alectenharmsel.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. 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
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] Six non-Gentoo installs
On 10/14/2014 10:39 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel a...@alectenharmsel.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. Wasn't trying to talk down to you; you were just trying something exotic. But yeah, it's the RedHat way or the highway which, as Rich mentioned, is great if you're looking for consistency and a support contract. Alec
