The Strengths and Weakness of Fedora/RHEL OS management

[Shane Stixrud]

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