On 15/10/14 04:14, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Grant Edwards > <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2014-10-15, Alec Ten Harmsel <a...@alectenharmsel.com> wrote: >> >>> The main problem (imnho) is that you think CentOS cares about >>> configurability/multiple ways of doing things. >> Oh, I don't think that -- it's pretty obvious that in the RedHat >> world, choice is not an option. It's one prix fixe menu, and you can >> either eat what's set in front of you or go hungry. >> > I can see the potential benefits of that. It sounds a bit like the > whole convention over configuration approach. As long as the > convention works, it does greatly simplify things. > > One thing I do like is the trend towards putting default configs in > /usr and using /etc more for overrides.
you should have a look at unionfs or aufs -- what you can do is have an initram that mounts /etc from lvm-stock-etc and then unionfs with lvm-custom-etc this allows you to have a standard lvm layout everywhere and then only need to rsync the lvm-custom partitions if you are feeling really fruity could use network locations for the stock locations and an sd card or small storage for the custom partition > If everything went that way > (and we stuck stuff like /var/lib/portage/world in /etc) then you > could have an /etc with 20 short files in it that reflected all the > tweaking you did to a system from a generic install. Sure, I love > config protection and etc-keeper and the like, but I'd like it still > better if etc wasn't such a mix. > > I'd really love it if I could dump 20 files in /etc and run emerge > -uDNv world and end up with a system identical to the one those 20 > files were copied from. > > -- > Rich >
