On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 04:02:43PM +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: > Victor Balada Diaz wrote: > >I think /etc/settings.conf is a poor choice for a file name. It's too > >generic. Why don't we call it /etc/pkgs.conf or something like that? > > The rationale was to have a generic file to put in various settings, so > that we don't have to add a file for each single configuration. > > I'd like to have a config file which is similar to rc.conf, just not for > rc but for the system configuration.
That's a very bad idea. rc.conf does have one task, and does it well. settings.conf can be used for a lot of different apps that have nothing in common. If you look at windows world, that reminds me of the registry: one place shared by a lot of apps that have become a huge mess. On unix world the philosophy is to have a lot of small apps that do one task and do it well, so i think that with configuration files we should do the same. In this case i think the best thing for just one setting would be an environment variable. Regards. -- La prueba más fehaciente de que existe vida inteligente en otros planetas, es que no han intentado contactar con nosotros.
