On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 01:34:35 +0400 Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:21:13PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Thursday 31 August 2006 16:09, Garance A Drosehn wrote: > > > At 8:48 AM -0400 8/31/06, John Baldwin wrote: > > > >On Thursday 31 August 2006 06:18, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:00:04 +0400 > > > > > Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > No, /etc/defaults are different beasties -- they are true > > > >> > default config files -- they are either used if there's no > > > >> > corresponding version under /etc, or most likely sourced > > > >> > to provide defaults. To be moved to /etc/defaults, a file > > > >> > should gain the same property. > > > >> > > > >> While this comment is blatently obvious: /etc/examples > > > > > > > >This is already spelled /usr/share/examples/etc in FreeBSD. > > > > > > Actually, as it stands right now that is not quite the same > > > thing. Right now /usr/share/examples/etc holds *exact copies* > > > of the files we install in /etc, for the reasons as described > > > in /usr/share/examples/etc/README.examples : > > > > I was thinking of /usr/share/examples/ppp (I thought it had > > been under /usr/share/examples/etc/ppp). Having > > /usr/share/examples/etc in its current form really isn't all > > that useful as for one thing it has rotted a bunch. I think > > instead that we should repurpose it for expanded versions of > > files. The current format of /etc/printcap should be an example > > file for example (it fits with /usr/share/examples/ppp style) > > and I think we shouldn't even have an /etc/printcap installed > > by default. Same with /etc/hosts.allow. > > > /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf is the example to follow. Very true. I'm digging this idea. -- Tom Rhodes _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
