* Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [120511 16:17]: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:08:32AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote: > > The FHS is very specific that /etc is for *Host-specific* system > > No, this is a total retcon. When the FHS was written, this was definitely > NOT a shared understanding of a difference between "host-specific > configuration" and "upstream defaults / distribution-specific > configuration".
I obviously read more into "host-specific" than was intended. > Distribution defaults still would go in /etc whenever it was expected that > an admin might want to edit the file. This has been the convention for more > than a decade. Agree completely. See the next sentence. > > Files containing distribution-specific defaults, whether they match some > > definition of "configuration file" or not, do not belong here unless the > > they are also intended to be edited by the local sysadmin. > > Yes. The issue is not that either system is a violation of the standard, > because intent is relevant here. If the upstream *intends* the file to be a > template that's overridden using a separate file, then /usr is the right > place. If the upstream intends the user to edit the provided file to make > their changes, it belongs in /etc. If the defaults are built into the > binary, that's perfectly fine too. I agree completely. I was responding specifically to the assertion that the definition of "configuration file" from Wikipedia meant that Debian "must" put files containing distribution-specific defaults in /etc, regardless of whether or not they were intended to be modified by the local sysadmin. > What *is* an issue is when upstreams decide to ship their defaults in /usr, > but require users to duplicate information between /usr templates and /etc > config files and ignore the contents of /usr in favor of the contents of > /etc. This is also not a violation of FHS, but it IS a crappy design. Again, I agree completely. See the part of my message that you did not include where I clarified to which etc-overrides-non-etc model I was referring. > When software is not able to override configuration *settings* with fine > granularity via /etc, the entire thing should go under /etc. Doing > otherwise makes this horrible for upgrades. Absolutely. Again, see my clarification of how I was using etc-overrides-non-etc. I did not go into what I think is wrong with "default in /usr, copy entirety to /etc and edit in order to override a single setting" because I was specifically trying to address the other poster's assertion that placing anything that matches the Wikipedia definition of "configuration file" anywhere other than /etc was a violation of a "must" in Debian policy. ...Marvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120511210825.gc7...@cleo.wdw
