On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:34:38PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 23:29 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > 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 > > Hrm, I don't see any conflict between "this fine-grained file holds > config for just one component" and "edit the file if you want to change > the config". That is, making the file fine-grained is to make editing > it EASIER (for a human or a program), not to eliminate editing it. > > I do see how thinking that deleting the file (or renaming it to file.no > or something) would seem like the right thing to do. How can we fix > that? >
For now I don't know :) I'm thinking about it Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature