On Mon, Jun 22, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

Hi

I'm currently working on the config file switch /etc --> /usr/etc (find Details on https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_UsrEtc) and now I'm wondering what should be done with files mentioned in the list below.

* /etc/profile.d/* (no changes in aaa_base, bash yet)

Yes, this should be moved to /usr/etc/profile.d at best, as the files there are not really configuration files or files an admin should change.

* /etc/alternatives/* (no changes in update-alternatives/dpkg yet)

It's correct, as the admin needs to change them.

* /etc/slp.reg.d/* (e.g. vnc.reg, ssh.reg) (no changes in openslp yet) * /etc/xdg/autostart (e.g. vncmanager-controller.desktop, xdg-user-dirs.desktop) * /etc/logrotate.d/* (e.g. xdm, dracut)

Somebody need to rewrite logrotate first :(

* /etc/skel/* (e.g. .xinitrc.template, .profile) (no changes yet in filesystem useradd, <whatever is affected>)

Also hard to change, as the admin should be able to change them...

* /etc/rpm/* macros (e.g. macros.xorg-server, macros.kernel-source)

For most packages, it's /usr/lib/rpm since some time already. perl and tcl also needs to be fixed. This is worth bug reports, as this needs to be fixed anyways.

Seems I depend a lot on other packages to implement the switch first. Or is the switch for the files in the list above not planned or sensible? What do you think?

It depends. And there will never be a move of all packages at the same time, the /etc directories and support for them have to stay for third party packages and admin changes, e.g. For the /etc/*.d files: if there is not already another location like /usr/lib/rpm/, yes, unfortunatley you have to wait until this packages support files in /usr/lib or /usr/etc. For some it should be easy, for others it will be pretty hard. Thorsten

Should I open bugzilla tickets for these and depend my tickets on these?

For most (if not all) of these packages I don't feel competent and I am simply not brave enough trying to do the required changes myself. Chances to break our distribution that way sounds rather realistic to me. :-(

I'm definitely willing to enhance the webpage above with the outcome of this discussion - if there is any.

Thanks, Stefan

Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ---------------------------------------------------------------- (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer ----------------------------------------------------------------

-- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect SLES & MicroOS SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Felix Imendoerffer (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Thorsten Kukuk wrote:

On Mon, Jun 22, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

I'm currently working on the config file switch /etc --> /usr/etc (find Details on https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_UsrEtc) and now I'm wondering what should be done with files mentioned in the list below.

* /etc/profile.d/* (no changes in aaa_base, bash yet)

Yes, this should be moved to /usr/etc/profile.d at best, as the files there are not really configuration files or files an admin should change.

Ok. I will open a bugzilla ticket for this and let my tickets depend on this.

...

* /etc/alternatives/* (no changes in update-alternatives/dpkg yet)

It's correct, as the admin needs to change them.

Hmm. I've been told that theoretically the system should still be funcional after removing all files below /etc. ;-) And in the same thread here Neal Gompa also provided input to this: === There's some interest in reworking alternatives(8) in Fedora to support the layered approach you're looking for: https://github.com/fedora-sysv/chkconfig/issues/9 We can probably switch alternatives implementations and have this implemented there. This also allows us to remove dpkg as a core dependency of an rpm-based system (!!!). I'd suggest reaching out and seeing if we could come to an agreement on how this should work. === Thorsten, I've seen that you even commented to the proposal in the issue tracker. I could open a bugzilla ticket if considered useful.

...

* /etc/slp.reg.d/* (e.g. vnc.reg, ssh.reg) (no changes in openslp yet)

Olaf Hering provided input: === The host admin has to maintain /etc/slp.reg.d, it should not be packaged, may become %doc. The host may announce unwanted or wrong data, depending on how the service is configured. === Thanks, Olaf. I will move my /etc/slp.reg.d/* files to %doc directory.

...

* /etc/xdg/autostart (e.g. vncmanager-controller.desktop, xdg-user-dirs.desktop)

Anybody with ideas about this one?

...

* /etc/logrotate.d/* (e.g. xdm, dracut)

Somebody need to rewrite logrotate first :(

Ok. I'm going to open a bugzilla ticket for this one and let depend my tickets on this one.

...

* /etc/skel/* (e.g. .xinitrc.template, .profile) (no changes yet in filesystem, useradd, <whatever is affected>)

Also hard to change, as the admin should be able to change them...

Hm. Maybe move the distributed ones to /usr/etc/skel and adjust everything needed to priotarize the ones in /etc/skel, i.e. use any file in /etc/skel but also any file, which exists in /usr/etc/skel, but not in /etc/skel? I will also open bugzilla ticket for this one and let depend my tickets on this one.

...

* /etc/rpm/* macros (e.g. macros.xorg-server, macros.kernel-source)

For most packages, it's /usr/lib/rpm since some time already.

Ah. Nice. Easy to fix for me. ;-)

perl and tcl also needs to be fixed. This is worth bug reports, as this needs to be fixed anyways.

Hmm. Could somebody else open bugzilla tickets for this?

...

Seems I depend a lot on other packages to implement the switch first. Or is the switch for the files in the list above not planned or sensible? What do you think?

It depends. And there will never be a move of all packages at the same time, the /etc directories and support for them have to stay for third party packages and admin changes, e.g.

I understand.

For the /etc/*.d files: if there is not already another location like /usr/lib/rpm/, yes, unfortunatley you have to wait until this packages support files in /usr/lib or /usr/etc. For some it should be easy, for others it will be pretty hard.

I'm going to open bugzilla tickets for this, so things are properly tracked. Thanks a lot for your valuable input! CU, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ---------------------------------------------------------------- (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

Hi, On Tue, Jun 23, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

Hmm. I've been told that theoretically the system should still be funcional after removing all files below /etc. ;-) And in the same thread here Neal Gompa also provided input to this:

=== There's some interest in reworking alternatives(8) in Fedora to support the layered approach you're looking for: https://github.com/fedora-sysv/chkconfig/issues/9

The request is over 2 years old, I wrote already our requirements one year ago, but nothing did happen until now. We can speak about this again if something is moving forward. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect SLES & MicroOS SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Felix Imendoerffer (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Jun 25, Neal Gompa wrote:

Regardless, it is unfair to expect everyone to do the work for you. That's not how any of this works. I pointed to the Fedora implementation because if you want to do the work, they will absolutely accept it, since they want it too.

Sorry Neal, but you promoted a solution which does not exist and to me it sounded more like you would like to see that we do the work for you. Not we were looking for a new implementation. In this regard it's unfair to expect that we do the work for something which we would evaluate for usage if it would exist, but which we don't need. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect SLES & MicroOS SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Felix Imendoerffer (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org