On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > Even though the misunderstanding does not seem to occur often, > it does seem somewhat unsurprising because a lot of other software > encourages the (imho questionable) practice of copying example > configuration files.
I think the documentation is quite clear, and the practice of copying a sample file is ...well ugly, but up to know it never confused me. When copying a sample file you have to point to a src file like /somehwere/example/file.conf or /somewhere/file.conf.sample and both makes it quite clear that they are "samples". In the case of rc.conf it is pretty much clear that it is NOT a sample file. I believe that to make it even more clear, instead of writing in the documentation, the system should be deployed will all the .local files in place (empty of course), so that there will be no misunderstanding of what to edit. I don't like this approach since the system would be potentially filled of files some users do not use, and will cause some annoying behaviour of shell completion. So I vote for the documentation first, but it sounds to me quite clear as it is. As a final thought, the local-file approach is used even by other platforms, and therefore we are in a "sample" like scenario: users should be used to edit them properly. Luca
