On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Freddie Cash writes: > >Oh, gods, please, no! That is one of the things I absolutely hate > >about Debian (and its derivatives). There are some packages on Debian > >where they use separate text files for each configuration option > >(ProFTPd, for examples). It is a huge mess of directories and files > >that makes it a *royal* PITA to edit at the CLI. > > > >Yes, a scheme like that is better for GUI tools, but it really makes > >things more difficult for non-GUI users/uses (like headless servers > >managed via SSH). > > Try managing a few hundred mostly-but-not-entirely-identical machines > and you really begin to appreciate the value of this approach. It is > orders of magnitude easier to drop one file into the central config > repository that does *one thing* than it is to manage a dozen > not-quite-identical copies of a monolithic configuration file, keeping > in sync the parts that are supposed to be in sync, and keeping the > parts that are supposed to be different, different. > > If FreeBSD were able to do this, it might have a bit more traction at > my place of employment.
We do, using a "include file" setup. A main, monolothic config file for everything that is common between all systems, and then include a separate file that is specific to that machine. We based this on the /etc/rc.conf vs /etc/rc.conf.local setup. Works quite nicely across our 100+ servers. No need to break things down to the "multiple directories full of symlinks and itty-bitty files" setup, though. -- Freddie Cash [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
