The Strengths and Weakness of Fedora/RHEL OS management
Shane Stixrud
shane at geeklords.org
Sun Apr 2 09:21:02 UTC 2006
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 19:29 -0800, Shane Stixrud wrote:
>> What would it take to convince you?
>>
>> The limitations around automating/scripting system changes without
>> replacing whole config files is one problem. How about the differing
>> syntax between most applications without a technical need, some of which
>> have horrid syntax. The impracticality of programs sharing configuration
>> elements with each other without each application being aware of every
>> other applications magic syntax. The impossibility of having an automated
>> system for saving and reverting changes without saving whole config files
>> after every change and then figuring out what changed and why. Or how
>> about the fact developing configuration guis/tools is many orders of
>> magnitude more difficult when their is no consistent config file standard?
>
> Look at Debian if you want to see how config files should be handled.
>
> Judicious use of conf.d type directories goes a long way.
Does not address any of the above in any significant way... in other words
I fail to see your point.
> Fedora's own /etc/sysconfig hierarchy is a good example of how config
> files can be brain dead simple, hand editable and GUI configurable.
Awww we agree! Considering that ALL of RedHat's sysconfig config
files are basically KEYS with values how could I not? If you give sysconfig
a bit more structure (directories), have the directory names themselves be
part of the syntax/semantics and standardized the
creation/removal/modification/searching and querying of these files in the
form of a library we end up with....... Elektra
....
Shane
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list