Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Thu Jun 18 19:49:07 -0400 2009: Ok, let me try to rephrase too. I agree with your points, but I still think a single etc is the way to go.
People sharing /opt/csw are going to need to handle configuration differently than others with everything local to the machine (where local means not nfs shared and if in a zone, a non-sparse zone). If the config is in /opt/csw/etc and they need it customized per nfs client (or zone), they'll be symlinking it to somewhere on the box or mounting another directory onto /opt/csw/etc. This means that every box using packages from /opt/csw will be required to have this config maintained locally somehow. Also, because some packages installed on the host for /opt/csw have placed config files in /etc/opt/csw, they'll be symlinking the client /etc/opt/csw to some location in the share, rsyncing it from the host, or otherwise taking additional care to make sure all clients have the required files. IOW, they're making accommodations in _both_ directions, ignoring the sites that only shove a few gnu tools or something onto a share. Not to ignore your point about site standard, glacially changing files...For sites not sharing their /opt/csw, this is moot. It doesn't matter where they live, so it might as well be /etc/opt/csw. For sites that are sharing, I think (hope?) that I've demonstrated that they're already doing extra work anyway, so xpdf.conf and the like wouldn't add burden. Does that make more sense? I think we mostly agree, we're just not seeing eye-to-eye on small semantic points. Thanks -Ben -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer - CHASS University of Toronto C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302 GPG Key Id: 8E89F6D2; Key Server: pgp.mit.edu Contact me to arrange for a CAcert assurance meeting.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
