Hi Antonio On 11/29/22 17:49, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote: >> Specially ~/.config/zutils or ~/.config/zutils.conf would be fine. > > I prefer the .conf extension. yes; config files should have the .conf extension; only if you'd have the .config/zutils directory to put them into (with .conf extension).
>> and having conf.d support (i.e. /etc/foo.conf.d/*.conf) would be nice >> too. > > I don't understand this one. Zutils uses just one configuration file in > /etc. What is the advantage of putting it in > /etc/zutils.conf.d/zutils.conf? old-school config handling requires manipulating one file, e.g. /etc/ssh/ssh_config. when doing configuration management, then that is very unfortunate design (thus unrelated of the implementation of the configuration management, be it homegrown or any of ansible/puppet/chef/$whatever...), because the file has to be parsed and edited - which inevitably always leads to problems over time, no matter how "good" the parser for a specific conffile is (be it comments added, local changes, or just the fact that the package management (dpkg/rpm) treat it as "modified" and thus will prompt for it on upgrades). the way to fix this completely is to allow to drop "snippets" of config files into a directory, which then are read lexicographically sorted. e.g. having "PasswordAuthentication yes" in /etc/ssh/ssh_config gets overwritten by /etc/ssh/ssh_config.d/10-disable-password-login.conf (which contains "PasswordAuthentication no"). Configuration management then can just put an updated 10-disable-password-login.conf on the system, or remove it when it's no more desired/needed. No more hassle needed :) This is how and why a lot of software has added support for so-called "conf.d handling" in the last ~15 years (ssh being one of the famous packages that has done it only just quite recently, though). Regards, Daniel
