On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:11:53PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > ... > In general a lot of this feels like "I only needed 6 big config files > to control my whole system in 1988, and so I should only need those > same 6 files now."
Yup; doesn't it feel good? (That's one of our selling points BTW.) > Sure, all us old-timers have the finger memory for editing rc.conf and > syslog.conf and so on, but how often do you crack open syslog.conf with > the plan of editing 12 different lines in it at once? Actually I don't want to open it [newsyslog.conf] at all, and on desktop, where odd things are noticed quickly, default rotation is good enough. I might want to edit it on server to e.g. keep at least one year worth of logs, and when I do, I'd rather edit one file instead of half-dozen. > Because the main objection to .conf.d directories seems to be that > there are more files to edit, and that just doesn't feel like a big > problem in actual daily use. Well, it kind of is. Keeping in mind "same 6 files" is a big helper; for the base you can be sure you won't forget anything accidentally. It is not that easy for ports for obvious reasons, but then again: we are talking about the base only here. ./danfe _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
