Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:36:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Dmitry Kohmanyuk <dk@dog.farm.org> To: rssh@cki.ipri.kiev.ua Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: on the subject of changes to -RELEASEs... Message-ID: <199704120736.AAA11209@dog.farm.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <334E1FEE.1BC7@cki.ipri.kiev.ua> you wrote: > Warner Losh wrote: > > > > In message <1652.860709359@time.cdrom.com> "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: > > : > how about making these "well known" files such as /etc/resolv.conf, > > : > /etc/host.conf and other stuff symlinks into /var/etc ? This is > > : > > : I'm starting to get a headache. :-) > > > > I hate to say this, but I kinda like this idea. > > > > Does somebody have a cononical list of these files so that some brave > > soles can begin to experiment? > I think, exists some standarts. > SIUC, POSIX s/SIUC/SVID/ ? That's System V Interface Definition... I don't think it defines and names within file system... > I don't know, are they defined canonical filenames, > but I think, that yes. (Sorry, but i have > no time for web-surfing now) > So, can anybody put a links to the standarts > (from altavista or yahoo) and determinate this > staff ? I don't know about POSIX much, but judging from my experience, I can tell you: There _cannot_ be a standard under which Solaris, SunOS, AIX, HP-UX, SCO, Digital Unix, FreeBSD and Linux all comply. The set intersection is _empty_. It looks to me that those standards do not exist. resolv.conf, for example, is pure BIND-isms. (host.conf can be even FreeBSDism with its format - compare that on Linux. service.switch (sendmail). nsswitch.conf (Solaris). svc.conf(?)(OSF).) etc. The idea of having read-only root filesystem and separate configuration information has its merit, but some files have to be there or you loose look-and-feel compatibility with whatever Unices we still have it. Union or overlap mount idea with symlinks can be neat, though. How about absolutely basic /etc which re-mounts /etc partion on top of itself and re-executes boot scripts? I don't think its a good thing for a standard configuration, though. -- "Standards don't make things work. Work makes things work. Good standards document working things." -- Mike O'Dell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704120736.AAA11209>