On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Jan Stary wrote on Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 08:17:49AM +0200: > > > Should mk.conf(5) be present in /etc/examples, > > or is it not there on purpose? > > Not every potential configuration file needs an example. > As a general direction, i'd rather aim for reducing the number of > files in /etc/examples/ than proliferating it. The problem is that > the directory dilutes documentation. Instead of having all the > documentation in one place, it makes you look in two places, the > manual and /etc/examples/, doubling the work you have to do when > changing a configuration, and creating a risk that some people look > at one place and don't even realize the other exists. It also > doubles the documentation maintenance work and the risk of documentation > getting outdated and contradictory, so grand total, it kind of > quadruples the risk of people misconfiguring their system. > > The concept was introduced to reduce the number of files in /etc/, > and that worked well. That doesn't mean all the examples files
There's also a side effect that sysmerge used. If an example file changes, it could mean the configuration syntax changed -- sysmerge will warn you. If we are to remove half of the examples (which I have no problem with), then I don't think sysmerge should warn anymore. -- Antoine
