El 17/9/23 a las 0:12, Daniel Gröber escribió:
Sam, Russ, Bill,
Thanks for your input. To be quite frank I still don't see how the
interpretation of allowing configuration files outside of /etc can be
supported based on the policy text.
Hello. I apologize for not having read the discussion in full.
I believe there is an underlying semantic problem here.
Those files were shipped in /etc before. They are not shipped
in /etc anymore. Instead, files with identical contents
are now shipped in /usr/lib.
In your eyes, this is enough to consider that the files
have "moved", and maybe that's why you are still calling
them "configuration files outside of /etc".
But this is all about intent. It's not the format of the file
or the way they modify the behaviour of the program what
makes them to be "configuration files". It's the intent.
If the files are intended to be modified "in place" by the
system admin, we call them configuration files (and we try hard
to put them in /etc). If they are not intended to be modified by
the system admin, we don't call them configuration files (and
we try hard not to put them in /etc).
So I maintain that the current policy text doesn't allow configuration
files outside of /etc.
I agree, and this is why I think there is a semantic problem. The way I see it,
the problem is not really that there are "configuration files outside of /etc",
the problem is calling them configuration files when they are not anymore.
The definition of "configuration file" may not be perfect, but we have
to be careful not to twist it too much, because we might find ourselves
in the difficult position that lots of files in /usr/lib would also be
"configuration files outside of /etc".
That's why I believe intent is essential here.
Thanks.
