On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 01:34:25PM -0500, Rick Troth wrote: > It's always a judgement call. > > I tend to take config back even further: if the package has only one config > file then let it stand on its own as /etc/thatthing.conf. But many packages > have stuff split into multiple files, so /etc/thatthing directory like you > suggested. But then some pkgs are sophisticated (or maybe just bloated) > they have /etc/thatthing dir for a bunch of stuff and /etc/thatthing/conf.d > dir for tweakable "configuration" via multiple files. I'm sure it's > justified in the minds of those who endorse it.
For me the two benefits of the conf.d/ sub-directory method is that it makes it easier in package-managed systems to avoid modifying the original package-installed conf file (which avoids rpmold or rpmnew files being scattered about when I upgrade), and also when I'm mass-manging systems I can push per-role config file fragments out to systems. -- Rodger Donaldson [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
