On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:55:21PM +0000, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, Michal Suchánek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 02:38:42PM +0000, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
I disagree. Other tools did that in the past, too (most prominent one: Linux-PAM). It did take some time until people did start learning, but in the end it was quite easy. Much simpler then having the pain to update this config files later.
These are much less likely to be changed.
It doesn't matter how often they get changed, once is already one time too often.
That Linux-PAM settings are less likely to be changed means there are fewer users affected by the settings migration. Almost everyone changes systemd settings, changing PAM settings is much more esoteric.
And if they should contain the default settings as comment, they will be changed very frequently.
- it list all config options and their default in a concise form (as pointed out by Martin) which is convenient.
This is not convenient, this is the major pain for updates. Everytime, a config changes upstram and an admin made a local change, we will either have rpmsave or rpmnew files, which makes the whole thing void and all advantages are gone. And you will never get this cleaned up again.
With the fifes shipping only documentation and no actual settings there is absolutely no problem with rpmnew files.
It is a problem because it contradicts the original idea to have the current settings there to make it easier for the admin. If you don't care if the defaults are valid, complete and correct, then we don't need them at all.
They are valid, complete, and correct so long as the user did not change the file, that is the first time they see it. The current, complete, and valid defaults will be in .rpmnew file if the user did change the file. The documentation can even advise to create separate file for the user setting. Thanks Michal