On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 14:23 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2020-02-18 02:56:07 +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > I strongly disagree that this should be in /usr, as it's > > configuration. > > > > The fashion of recent years to place configuration in /usr is IMHO > > quite questionable: > > > > /usr is generally nothing that people are expected to monitor so if > > the > > distro decides to change a previous (distro-)default it will be > > unnoticed by users (in contrast to /etc). > > I agree with you, possibly except if > > 1. Configuration placed under /usr is considered hard-coded defaults, > thus needs to be documented as such.
That's what I've tried to say... I think it's ok, if it's considered to be hard-coded defaults... but then we shouldn't place distro-specific changes in there. > > I think having defaults stored in /usr is kinda "ok" if these are > > upstream defaults (an upstream could also just change defaults in > > the > > sources without the enduser noticing it).. but I think distros > > shouldn't do so - especially if the changes don't match the default > > upstream behaviour. > > Isn't this a bit special for sysctl? Debian has its own defaults > for its kernels and the user can also build kernels with other > defaults (in which case configuration from /usr can be confusing > if not clearly documented). Well one could argue that... I guess in the end it's much a point of view. The only problem I saw is that more and more "config" seems to go into /usr/ or /lib/ from different packages (e.g. all the units for systemd - and I rather talk about the units from other packages, not systemd itself) and many of them I - but again this is just a personal PoV - wouldn't consider so much hardcoded defaults. Cheers, Chris.
