[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: base directory spec



Hi,

On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 02:03:23PM +0100, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Monday 09 December 2002 11:12, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> > And come to think of it, even in such environment configuration settings
> > are host specific rather than shared. Sure, a group of host may share a
> > similar situation, but unless you share that data (which is what
> > /usr/share is) and your shared version of the configuration file from
> > a host in that group rather than a server, chances are it'll be out of
> > sync anyway with the actual applications installed on the hosts.
> 
> The point is that if you mount applications from location X that you also pull 
> your default config from location X. 

Well, yes, but you're not mounting applications from location X with
/usr/share. Only the application data. Which still leaves you with the
need to deal with binaries and possibly libraries. (the architecture
dependant data)

> From what I understand you basically say that you need to go to great 
> difficulty to get a shared configuration in /etc and that because you need to 
> do that anyway you don't see the benefits of an easier solution.

Yes I do see the benefits. But merely putting configuration in /usr/share
is not the solution IMO. Putting the configuration in a location which
is then shared and mounted on other hosts as /etc is. Which off course
still doesn't get you the rest of the applications - the binaries,
mostly - besides configuration (/etc) and data (/usr/share). Hence my
comment that the /usr/share rationale in FHS is a nice thing to say, but
not very practical, and adding configuration in the loop isn't changing
that. (ignoring the fact for now that configuration isn't even as
shareable as data is, because it should be able to be modified)

As for the mounting of /etc I talked about above, note that it's not
easy to mount /etc separately from / due to the way how the current
Linux - and Unix in general - startup works.

> > And how do you get to the conclusion that any configuration at all
> > should go in /usr/share?
> > FHS specificically says "The /usr/share hierarchy is for all read-only
> > architecture independent data files."
> > I wouldn't say configuration qualifies as data, nor as read-only. And it
> > can indeed even be arch dependent (although it usually won't be).
> 
> Since the FHS doesn't say where shared config data is supposed to go then, I 
> think it is reasonable to put it under /usr/share.

The FHS simply doesn't _distinguish_ `shared configuration' from
configuration in general, which means it should just be in /etc with the
rest. If that's not possible or desirable the issue should be discussed
with the FHS people.


You also haven't addressed the point that the decentralization of config
files in /etc and /usr/share is confusing towards admins and users as it
adds YA location to go look in, which, on top of that, can't even be
modified in place. (/usr/share is supposed to be RO)


Regards,

Filip

-- 
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
	-- Albert Einstein





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]