Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:44:16 +1100 From: "Andrew Reilly" <areilly@nsw.bigpond.net.au> To: Thomas Stromberg <tstromberg@rtci.com> Cc: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time for an /etc/ipv6 directory? (restructure /etc?) Message-ID: <20000316094416.A84559@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.20.0003151241400.5932-100000@barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com> References: <20000315130310N.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> <Pine.GSO.4.20.0003151241400.5932-100000@barracuda.aquarium.rtci.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 01:09:23PM -0500, Thomas Stromberg wrote: > Should we go the same route? Should we symlink our /etc directory to all > hell and back, or screw backwards compatibility? What is our > direction. I'm not advocating any of the ideas above, I just want to give > everyone a little food for thought. Many questions need to be answered. I think that symlink farms are a bad idea, and in this case they defeat the only purpose that increasing the depth of the /etc hierarchy could serve. > Directory organization is something which is always a topic for argument, > because everyone seems to have their own idea and be passionate about > it. As far as myself, I don't really care, as long as /etc is only for > config files :0 I'd like to see /etc eventually be replaced by a portal file system accessing a configuration database (maybe in LDAP). But I'm just saying that to be argumentative. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000316094416.A84559>