On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:27:49PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 23:24 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:48:25AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, May 18, 2017 03:09:32 PM Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 02:56:31AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > The support for broken out files has long been there, but the base > > > system has > > > not used them previously for default config shipped during a > > > release. That > > > is in fact a new trend. > > > > > > However, the current approach seems to be the absolute worst way to > > > do this. > > > If someone wants to use the existing base system image and modify > > > it with > > > config management, they now have to use a mix of styles (for some > > > services > > > edit a global config file for certain settings, but use a dedicated > > > file for > > > other settings for the same service, or for the same settings but a > > > different > > > service). It's also the worst case for humans trying to work with > > > our system > > > as the division between which services are broken out vs global is > > > inconsistent and arbitrary. > > > > > > Once you split up the files you make a merge conflict for anyone > > > trying to do > > > an upgrade. If we do this piecemail then we create N merge > > > conflicts for users > > > to deal with as opposed to if you split it up all at once. > > > > > > Also, there wasn't a clear consensus (a mail to arch@ with "hey, we > > > should > > > switch to splitting up config files for reasons A and B and let's > > > do this for > > > 12.0 but not merge to stable so there is a clear flag day / sign > > > post for users > > > to manage upgrades". Instead there have been a couple of commits > > > and any > > > not-in-100%-agreement opinions are ignored. > > > > > That's true, another thing is the way it is done, there is no simple > > way to > > disable the at cron from an admin point of view rather than rm > > /etc/cron.d/at > > for an end user which an upgrade will bring back. > > > > Bapt > > Would you not just comment out or delete the line, exactly as you would > do in the main /etc/crontab?
Right but with a .d directory I would expect to just remove/add files/symlinks rather than editing it, which defeat the point of the .d Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
