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