Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:30:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>
To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu>
Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: minor heads up - /etc/make.conf{,.local} being moved
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.20.9911021223220.2115-100000@dt050n71.san.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911022230130.3716-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Jason C. Wells wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> >> I think it is necessary to make it exit for now, because what we are
> >> really doing is a net-0 gain in files... turning what used to be
> >> functionality in /etc/make.conf.local into /etc/make.conf. The intent is
> >> not to add a third file. If the intent were to add a third configuration
> >> file then, sure, we could allow all three. But that isn't my intent.
> >
> > Ok, well put me on record as wanting three files. While I still have
> Put me down as wanting two files. An extra file is just more shtuff to
> keep track of. I too am iffy on /etc/defaults. If the purpose of defaults
> is to keep "standard" things in isolation then lets do that. Begrudgingly,
> defaults do clean up /etc a bit. It makes mergemastering easier too. The
> defaults will be better when they become more complete.
Actually system updates are exactly why I treat the /etc/defaults
business with a great deal of mistrust. It hides (or more precisely, it
_can_ hide) details of changes and new options from the user. Using
mergemaster at least allows you to see more clearly what has been changed,
however It still makes me nervous. I'm contemplating some changes that
will help correlate differences between /etc/defaults/*.conf and
/etc/*.conf[.local], but right now I have no time to hack them out.
> >some reservations about the whole /etc/defaults thing, I believe that if
> >we are going to use it we should use it to full advantage, offering
> >people more functionality, not less. Unless I am missing something, the
>
> The number of files relating to make would still be two. The purpose of
> each of those files is the same. The new functionality is precisely equal
> to the previous functionality.
Well I don't think that you've made a case yet that the number of
files should be zero sum, and as someone pointed out you don't have to use
make.conf.local if you don't want or need it. My points are simply that we
already have a precedent, the three-tier system for rc.conf has proven to
be useful, and if we are going to make a change anyway let's give the user
more options, not less.
Doug
--
"Stop it, I'm gettin' misty."
- Mel Gibson as Porter, "Payback"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.20.9911021223220.2115-100000>