Per Jessen said the following on 01/22/2013 09:32 AM:

Mark Gray wrote:

...

[...] and systemd is Fedora centric so makes no use of them.

Each service unit could continue to use them (by way of the EnvironmentFile directive) - the config has to stored somewhere.

I also run Fedora and can assure you that the systemd files in Fedora *DO* make use of files in /etc/sysconfig -- "Politics is the art of appearing candid and completely open, while concealing as much as possible." -- Brian Herbert, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

El 22/01/13 11:41, Anton Aylward escribió:

I also run Fedora and can assure you that the systemd files in Fedora *DO* make use of files in /etc/sysconfig

Yes, unfortunately some apps have a to read those files, though it is an awful ugly idea that hopefully go away someday. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Ken Schneider - openSUSE said the following on 01/22/2013 11:34 AM:

On 01/22/2013 10:16 AM, Cristian Rodríguez pecked at the keyboard and wrote:

...

El 22/01/13 11:41, Anton Aylward escribió:

...

I also run Fedora and can assure you that the systemd files in Fedora *DO* make use of files in /etc/sysconfig

Yes, unfortunately some apps have a to read those files, though it is an awful ugly idea that hopefully go away someday.

Having config files is ugly. What a profound statement to make on a highly configurable OS.

+1 They will 'go away' when - and only when - you have an acceptable substitute. Right now they meet a few useful criteria a) they are under /etc b) they are in a directory called "config' c) they are in files that correspond to the name of facility I recall when the PAM files were not in /etc/pam.d/ and were not in files that met (c). Much nicer now. If you have an alternative for this present 'evil' and 'pernicious' and 'ugly' and 'not nice' present arrangement, I'm sure we'd be glad to hear about it. What, a one great whopping file like Windows Registry? No than you! -- A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1953 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 01/22/2013 12:14 PM, Cristian Rodríguez pecked at the keyboard and wrote:

El 22/01/13 13:46, Anton Aylward escribió:

...

They will 'go away' when - and only when - you have an acceptable substitute. Right now they meet a few useful criteria

a) they are under /etc b) they are in a directory called "config' c) they are in files that correspond to the name of facility

Exactly. that's it.

...

What, a one great whopping file like Windows Registry?

Nope, just follow this simple rules:

a) if your software is configurable only through the command line, add a configuration file to it in .ini format.

This is NOT MS windows, please don't try and make it the same. If you like .ini files so much go back to using MS windows. -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 01/22/2013 12:32 PM, Cristian Rodríguez pecked at the keyboard and wrote:

El 22/01/13 14:26, Ken Schneider - openSUSE escribió: ¿

...

This is NOT MS windows, please don't try and make it the same. If you like .ini files so much go back to using MS windows.

Using ini files is the Status quo.. and there is nothing wrong with them. the are already used widely from sysctl to systemd, samba and the whole desktop world.

That's not the point. Linux has never, to my knowledge, required extensions to define a file type like MS has. Why start now? And where do you propose all _system config_ files be kept? Should we now be required to search all over the f@#&ing place for them? KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 2013-01-22 12:43 (GMT-0500) Ken Schneider - openSUSE composed:

Should we now be required to search all over the f@#&ing place for them?

That's already the case. openSUSE is the worst violator of the FHS use for /etc I'm familiar with. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Ken Schneider - openSUSE wrote: <snip>

I'm only talking about _system configuration_ files not application configuration files.

And I will state that Christian has not said some of the things I am stating here, only the inference is there.

in my experience, if I believe that a statement infers something, it is most effective to ask the speaker, whether the inference was intended. Building arguments against something you *think* may have been inferred, only leads to the impression that you have either an unspoken agenda or interest: perhaps you are extending a debate from some other conversation, or perhaps you have some personal animosity. I don't know, and don't really care - civil discussions are always more productive than shouting past each other. IMO -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Ken Schneider - openSUSE said the following on 01/22/2013 12:26 PM:

On 01/22/2013 12:14 PM, Cristian Rodríguez pecked at the keyboard and wrote:

...

El 22/01/13 13:46, Anton Aylward escribió:

...

They will 'go away' when - and only when - you have an acceptable substitute. Right now they meet a few useful criteria

a) they are under /etc b) they are in a directory called "config' c) they are in files that correspond to the name of facility

Exactly. that's it.

...

What, a one great whopping file like Windows Registry?

Nope, just follow this simple rules:

a) if your software is configurable only through the command line, add a configuration file to it in .ini format.

This is NOT MS windows, please don't try and make it the same. If you like .ini files so much go back to using MS windows.

+1 Sorry, Cristian, what you say makes no sense and flies in the face of well established Linux conventions for configuration, both global and per-user. First you are going to have to make it clear why the current config files under /etc are 'ugly' and why .ini files are not 'ugly' and how the config files under /etc/ that use NAME = value is any different from from what you might find in a .ini file. Right now your argument seems very vague. -- An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject and how to avoid them. --Werner Heisenberg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Cristian Rodríguez said the following on 01/22/2013 04:46 PM:

El 22/01/13 14:50, Anton Aylward escribió:

...

First you are going to have to make it clear why the current config files under /etc are 'ugly' and why .ini files are not 'ugly' and how the config files under /etc/ that use

NAME = value

is any different from from what you might find in a .ini file.

Right now your argument seems very vague.

Huh ? never said that config files in /etc are ugly, what I said is that sysconfig has been abused over the years to the point it has become a sort of dump place where all workarounds for software that do not implement configuration files go to live.

Huh? You did use the world 'ugly' and that may be what you meant but it wasn't what you said. You haven't sad why those files are 'ugly', what you suggest instead of the VALUE=setting and explanatory text in those files. And where? and how are they named? As for the idea that you now put into words ... well lets word it another way: You're saying that /etc/config is where the config files for software that does not have other config files elsewhere has config files. Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. What I'm seeing in /etc/config are key system runtime or boot/start time parameters. While /etc/dhcpd.conf contains the parameters, what actually tells the system if it should start dhcpd at all and what the 'command line' parameters are? Its all very well to say that they should be in /etc/dhcpd.conf but that misses the point. That file is how the daemon is configured. How to run it is another matter. The way I look at it /etc/sysconfig is, was and is evolving to address SYSTEM CONFIGURATION. *Not* how the system applications are configured. Note I say 'system'. The stuff the user runs lives under ~/user dot files. As systemd sees wider use the arguments for startup etc the parameters have to come from somewhere. Would you have them spread all over the place? You mentioned the .INI files from Windows. Those were all over the place! Yes 'localized' to the folder for the application, which, as I mentioned, is quite differnt from how Linux aranges things. That is not going to change. That confusion is what led Microsoft to move to the database that is the registry, which is even more obscure. I cna't see Linux giving up readable text files to go to a database to replace what's in /etc and /etc/sysconfig. Not when the current style has explanatory text along side the settings, something that MS's registry lacks and so has 'secret' and obscure or undocumented settings. So what are you proposing as an alternative? If you have a better idea, propose it freely and we'll cosnider it on its merits. -- Objects in calendar are closer than they appear. -- Jim Duncan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 01/22/2013 12:08 PM, Cristian Rodríguez pecked at the keyboard and wrote:

El 22/01/13 13:34, Ken Schneider - openSUSE escribió:

...

Having config files is ugly. What a profound statement to make on a highly configurable OS.

NO, having configuration files is fine, as long they are parsed or generated directly by the program itself.

Sounds like you against anyone manually changing config files. That has been/is one of the strengths of linux. -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Ken Schneider - openSUSE said the following on 01/22/2013 12:24 PM:

On 01/22/2013 12:08 PM, Cristian Rodríguez pecked at the keyboard and wrote:

...

El 22/01/13 13:34, Ken Schneider - openSUSE escribió:

...

Having config files is ugly. What a profound statement to make on a highly configurable OS.

NO, having configuration files is fine, as long they are parsed or generated directly by the program itself.

Sounds like you against anyone manually changing config files. That has been/is one of the strengths of linux.

+1 And it adds a layer of complexity for small programs that is unwarrented. Larger programs such as Postfix are so complex that they *need* manual configuration! The variations in site-specific or other context specific demands for detailed configuration would require a seperate 'expert system'. This is often beyond the capability of the programmer. I suggest you examine the makefile generator that goes with many packages as an example of 'externality'. Embedding all that in gcc would be ridiculous. -- Quality is not an act - it is a habit. - Aristotle -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

El 22/01/13 15:05, Peter Van Lone escribió:

ummm, Cristian, please correct me if I am wrong, but when I read your words I do not see that you said anything about preventing manual changes to config files?

From what I can interpret, it seems that you are simply wanting to do away with changes made by SYSCONFIG to other programs files - you would like each program to read and (if so desired) write those files.

Correct?

That's exactly right, either : - people are doing inferences about what I have said. - I am communicating poorly. - or both :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. said the following on 01/22/2013 09:45 PM:

El 2013-01-22 a las 14:08 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez escribió:

...

NO, having configuration files is fine, as long they are parsed or generated directly by the program itself.

I find that a centralized sysconfig directory, with files following the same syntax, and serving as metaconfig for the actual config files is a fine SUSE addition. It is perfect.

I prefer this than having to learn how each program does its own config.

+1 But I suspect that Cristian is talking about something else; he seems to have dodged and twisted - or maybe its a language thing. But no, I can't see Postfix generating alias files or master.cf filter configurations. As I said, maybe an external 'AI' to guide you, but its still about DECISIONS that a human needs to make, and often simpler to do by hand. Nothing to do with anything about a command line 'cos there's simply too much. Do we still ha a limit on how many characters can be on a command line? -- Aviation is not so much a profession as it is a disease. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Per Jessen said the following on 01/23/2013 02:26 AM:

Anton Aylward wrote:

...

Carlos E. R. said the following on 01/22/2013 09:45 PM:

...

El 2013-01-22 a las 14:08 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez escribió:

...

NO, having configuration files is fine, as long they are parsed or generated directly by the program itself.

I find that a centralized sysconfig directory, with files following the same syntax, and serving as metaconfig for the actual config files is a fine SUSE addition. It is perfect.

I prefer this than having to learn how each program does its own config.

+1

/etc/sysconfig is usually just a bunch of environment variables. I think there _is_ a place for /etc/sysconfig, but it's certainly not for normalizing configuration files and parameters.

/etc/sysconfig is more than just a 'bunch of environment variables'. I'm not sure its even that. I'd call it 'System Settings'. Like *WHAT* DM to use, What Display manager to use Whether or not to run various things. Perhaps part of the confusion is that UNIX broke down the traditional barrier between what was system code and what was an application. In old-speak, things like compilers and the services handled by XINETD were 'system'. In the 70s, UNIX represented a 'microkernel' and 'everything was an application' in the sense that it ran in user space and 'each thing did one thing and only one thing' and the monolithic programs that were the norm on mainframes went away. Well OK, the monoliths have crept back in, noticeable as the long running programs like database servers (the Oracle model rather than the Progress model) and given up on the radical idea that UNIX introduced cheap-to-spawn short lived programs. But I think we still have to draw a boundary between system services and the user applications. Like the SSHD is a system service but ssh is a user application. The configuration for the user - per user - lives in ~/.ssh/ So where does the configuration for SSHD live? In /etc/ssh/ obviously. But that's the configuration for the INNARDS of the server/daemon. And this is where I think what you meant by 'environment' comes in. As I said earlier, there are DECISIONS - is it to be run at all? - chrooted ? things like that. Now it may be that for an implementation some of this 'environment' ends up on the command line like logfile=/var/log/.... but that is beside the point and distracting. Necessary but not the issue. Suppose we want to debug. Maybe its a flag, "-v", "-vvvvv", "-D". Or maybe its to run under 'strace', 'gdb' or similar. I suppose you could call that 'environment' as well. But this is distinct from the settings for the service we would find under /etc/ssh/, /etc/dhcpcd.conf, /etc/postfix/ They serve different functions. And that's apart from the "settings" in /etc/sysconfig/displaymanager which doesn't really correspond to a program. Its about decisions. For example I have an entry there ## Path: Desktop/Display manager ## Description: settings to generate a proper displaymanager config ## Type: string(kdm,kdm3,kdm4,xdm,gdm,wdm,entrance,console) ## Default: "" # # Here you can set the default Display manager (kdm/xdm/gdm/wdm/entrance/console). # all changes in this file require a restart of the displaymanager # DISPLAYMANAGER="lightdm" There are other entries of similar gross function. One says to use Xorg.

...

But I suspect that Cristian is talking about something else; he seems to have dodged and twisted - or maybe its a language thing. But no, I can't see Postfix generating alias files or master.cf filter configurations.

postfix is actually one of those where none of the config is in sysconfig. It is in /etc/postfix/, only to be parsed by postfix. The only thing you typically pass on the command line is the config-dir.

Postfix is a complex example. Yes Postfix can dump SOME of its internal state, but that's far from what can be setup in /etc/postfix/. I chose Postfix as a poster-boy _because_ it can dump internal state - Cristian raised that. But much of its configuration is way, way beyond that. It may be a bad example; The Suse version of /etc/sysconfig/postfix contains the settigns used by SuSEconfig.postfix to generate teh files in /etc/postfix. Or some of them. Its far from a complete configuration. This is suse-specific, the Mandriva/Magia and Fedora are different, not only because they lack Yast and SuSEconfig.postfix but because they have itnegrated systemd better. In those instances the /etc/sysconfig/postfix is about the DECISION whether or not to chroot postfix. In that sense Cristian is right about the archaism and dependency on SuSEconfig. But that is no reason to get rid of /etc/sysconfig. Sorry, I can't comment on how Ubuntu does things :-)

...

Do we still ha a limit on how many characters can be on a command line?

Yes.

Which puts the kibosh on the idea and argument about the command line. Lets face it, some of the arguments in this thread are because openSuse is not at the bleeding edge of Linux development as is Fedora. Yes it still carried the gunnysack of history (such as SuSEconfig) and still has to have somewhere to store the settign used when Yast is being used as a configuration manager. Perhaps that's the case where some external program alters the config. This is good and bad. Some of Yast I like and consider a Good Thing(tm) not only for newbies but because sometimes a GUI can be faster than the raft of command line instructions that I'm going to mis-type. But for a lot of things Yast is an 'idiot stick' if you have any experience. "In the beginning was the command line", and so long as you don't have one long enough to typo then its faster and easier. I can't imagine doing a chown/chmod with a GUI :-) Despite all these issues, one of the reasons I like openSuse over and above the other RPM implementations of Linux is that its configuration *is* more visible. Fedora has integrated systemd much further and I had problems with how they started postfix. Whoops! No line in /etc/sysconfig/post saying CHROOT=1 that I could change; in fact they've gotten rid of /etc/sysconfig/postfix. I had to start hacking the systemd files and searching google. Yes, there was a bug report and yes it was eventually fixed, but it wasn't very visible and it wasn't about SYSTEM CONFIGURATION done is a visible and easy to change manner. The problem isn't that /etc/sysconfig is -- There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full. -- Henry Kissinger -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2013-01-23 a las 08:26 +0100, Per Jessen escribió:

postfix is actually one of those where none of the config is in sysconfig. It is in /etc/postfix/, only to be parsed by postfix. The only thing you typically pass on the command line is the config-dir.

Not exactly. You configure mail with YaST, which sets some variables in sysconfig, then runs SuSEconfigs which translates those sysconfig settings into the needed variables for postfix, fetchmail, etc. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 11.4, with Evergreen, x86_64 "Celadon" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlEArbYACgkQja8UbcUWM1wzHQEAj6PPeGYeSEejp56Sz30QgCvn cyxW7jHGfvT4VCDznZ4A/3x3MV546IU+5JUjNolFu0fy5TA5cFQCCVaF+5X7/U7S =xAtV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Cristian Rodríguez said the following on 01/23/2013 11:28 PM:

On 01/24/2013 12:42 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

You configure mail with YaST, which sets some variables in sysconfig, then runs SuSEconfigs

Btw, Suseconfig is dead now, it has been removed and will not appear in future products.

Which gets bask to /etc/sysconfig as a set of parameters for how the system is to be run - decisions points about options (e.g. /etc/sysconfig/{displaymanager,windowmanager} or for systemd. In the frontispiece of one of my university engineering textbooks there was a quotation from from the Roman poet Horace which I think is generally addressable to the principles of FOSS and in specifically here: If a better system is thine, impart it; if not, make use of mine. -- If I still had 8" floppy drives I'd be much more concerned about hardware failures, storage capacity and performance issues than BS viruses. -- Bill Campbell, CISM, CISSP, March 2007 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2013-01-24 at 08:41 +0100, Per Jessen wrote:

Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Not exactly.

You configure mail with YaST, which sets some variables in sysconfig, then runs SuSEconfigs which translates those sysconfig settings into the needed variables for postfix, fetchmail, etc.

Yes, I guess YaST supports that - I never use it though.

It's probably an example of what Cristian means - the settings in /etc/sysconfig/postfix are used to create config files.

It is one of those grey areas where the config data really belongs in /etc/postfix/, but to make it easier for the newbie and others who would rather not know about postfix, YaST adds a layer of configuration for the most often changed/needed options. The minute you want to do a little bit more, you have to give up on YaST.

YaST doesn't know how to properly edit postfix configuration, it just creates a basic configuration from the sysconfig variables. It is a one way process, it can not parse postfix configuration: it reads sysconfig. If you alter postfix directly, yast quits (or rather SuSEconfig does). If you remove sysconfig, you have to remove the postfix mail module of yast, because I don't think they have the man power to redesign it to parse /etc/postfix. So what do we do, remove sysconfig, and next a bunch of modules out of yast, which was our flagship? What do we want, a distro for profesionals that can edit postfix directly, or a distro for both profesionals and newbies, where those can use yast to create a basic but working postfix setup? Doesn't the openSUSE paper say something about that? - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 12.1 x86_64 "Asparagus" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlEEVO4ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UwngCeKyy4KUs/2i7rrPplkUXLPaai FMEAnjP4kUFZLuhur4kJsGi9eDkm1hqx =RhWm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. said the following on 01/23/2013 10:42 PM:

El 2013-01-23 a las 08:26 +0100, Per Jessen escribió:

...

postfix is actually one of those where none of the config is in sysconfig. It is in /etc/postfix/, only to be parsed by postfix. The only thing you typically pass on the command line is the config-dir.

Not exactly.

You configure mail with YaST, which sets some variables in sysconfig, then runs SuSEconfigs which translates those sysconfig settings into the needed variables for postfix, fetchmail, etc.

Yes you *CAN* do it that way, but it only gives a very basic configuration. There is a lot about aliasing, transport, black and white listing, authentication mechanisms, more, more, more. Postfix is very capable and what YaST deals with is a basic 'get it up and running in the straight forward case'. The issues I've had with Postfix have required and 'expert system' to address. He lives in Montreal. -- Whitehead's Law: The obvious answer is always overlooked. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

El 22/01/13 13:34, Ken Schneider - openSUSE escribió:

...

Having config files is ugly. What a profound statement to make on a highly configurable OS.

NO, having configuration files is fine, as long they are parsed or generated directly by the program itself.

I believe this is the message that created the controversy. To me, and apparently to most other people reading it, it implies two things: (1) every program has the ability to write as well as read its own configuration file(s) (2) no other program is allowed to write a configuration file (else if they do it is 'ugly') People have objected to both of these implications and given counterexamples. Perhaps it would be good for Cristian to state exactly what he did mean. It still isn't clear to me for instance whether he really did mean (2), so that using YaST or a desktop config program to modify configurtion would be impossible (except by modifying YaST to invoke the actual program to edit its own config, which IMHO leads to a pretty complex infrastructure - essentially an object bus - I'd be interested to see an example) There's also the separate issue of the format of config files. It clearly makes sense to have a restricted set of formats that used shared parser and producer code. And to me it makes sense to have a format that is easy for users to understand (e.g. not XML). But there are reasonable alternatives to ini format, and it is possible to use a shared parser that can handle multiple formats automatically. So I don't think it's a question with a clear-cut answer. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 1/22/2013 10:13 AM, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:

El 22/01/13 09:49, General Mail escribió:

...

Interesting to know, since this still preliminary, I would have asked if by any chance you know if /etc/sysconfig directory will be removed along with the files

Not for now probably.

...

I seem to have a fundamental grasp of the structure of sysconfig configuration files and I have been able to get by

sysconfig is a legacy thing, currently a pile a hacks for software that do not have proper configuration files,

I would love if it gets axed soon, but that's does not seem to be in the roadmap for now.

From what I observe, in most cases, I've seen init scripts depending on /etc/sysconfig which seems reasonable to me. Yast sysconfig as a centralize solution seems reasonable to me as well. I am not adept with openSUSE internals, albeit to some it seems legacy, however it's still useful. Running all over the place to configure various aspect of openSUSE seems cumbersome to me. I do agree that software developers solely depending on /etc/sysconfig for configurations settings *MAY* lead to unintended consequences but it's still useful. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 1/22/2013 7:38 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:

General Mail said the following on 01/22/2013 07:04 PM:

Am I supposed to salute? I'm no in uniform, are you? In fact *WHO* are you?

...

From what I observe, in most cases, I've seen init scripts depending on /etc/sysconfig which seems reasonable to me.

In that case you should not be put out s things move from sysvinit to systemd and those same config files and same config parameters are used.

After all, they are system init parameters, not there for general programmers and all and sundry. Take a look in /usr/share for some other _application_ parameters. I admit that is not the nicest lace for some, especially some like KDM.

...

Yast sysconfig as a centralize solution seems reasonable to me as well.

And its nicer than the way yum works which is, by comparison, incomplete.

...

I am not adept with openSUSE internals, albeit to some it seems legacy, however it's still useful. Running all over the place to configure various aspect of openSUSE seems cumbersome to me.

:-) I note the way you said that; you seem to mean 'system' rather than application.

Are you specifically talking to me? We seem to be agreeing. This rant seems a bit pointless.

...

I do agree that software developers solely depending on /etc/sysconfig for configurations settings *MAY* lead to unintended consequences but it's still useful.

So how are you differentiating between someone who writes a system facility, such as DNS, DHCPD, SSHD, from someone who writes an application such as VIM or a desktop widget? After all, they are both 'software developers'.

I have no idea, you tell me. P.S. Why did I bother to but in :/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Cristian Rodríguez said the following on 01/22/2013 08:12 PM:

El 22/01/13 21:04, General Mail escribió:

...

From what I observe, in most cases, I've seen init scripts depending on /etc/sysconfig which seems reasonable to me.

Not really, no. see.. once upon a time.. ( :-) ) when systems had very limited processing power & storage, lacked of shared libraries and plug and play devices did not exist, programs could not afford any other way of getting startup parameters than the command line. That times are gone, now your cellphone has more computing power than NASA Apollo missions that sent people to the moon, yet for historical reasons some software still relies solely on this mechanism, that's one of the reasons sysconfig exists.

That's a non-sequitor. Configuration isn't about computing power. Take, for example, /etc/sysconfig/displaymanager. Its about DECISIONS. What display manager to run. Not how a specific display manager (kdm for example) is configured, what the wallpaper is, where the dialog box sits, colours, decoration, but DECISIONS as to *WHAT* to run. Elsewhere you'll find whether to include "." in the PATH. Nothing to do with command lines. And even so, when there are parameters for systemd, its about AUTOMATION rather than you having to type them[1]. And its about SYSTEM matters, not user-application matters. I still don't see you proposing an alternative for what the sysconfig files *are* doing. How about you stop making emotional statements and emotional terms like 'ugly' and talk in functional terms. Determine what it is that they are used - and what they are *not* being used for - for and why, and offer alternatives. As in "Put up or shut up". [1] Just as the values in many of my ~/dot files have settings that would be on the command line if I had to type them but don't. -- Events in complex systems are not susceptible to root cause analysis. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org