Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
On 5 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: 05 Oct 1999 23:39:05 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Kaszeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc? Resent-Date: 5 Oct 1999 21:39:55 - Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; Richard Kaszeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin Schulze writes (Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?): Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: Just a quick inquiry -- Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND Because configuration belongs to /etc. Period. Good point, but etc blows up to quite a size and can´t be shared across hosts. ... Config files are, by their nature, host-specific, and should not be in /usr They are not. e.g. /etc/hosts should be the same across a pool. Nearly all files in /etc can be shared and none should be rewritten on the fly. This is what NIS and NIS+ are for, to share these files across hosts. A lot of UNIX derived systems end up modifying the normal placement of files because a few people feel they have a better way to do things. The end result is the mess /etc has become over the years. I would LOVE to see /etc become configuration files only, with NO binaries in there at all. To be able to do an rgrep in /etc to find a config, and never have binary garbage fly across the screen would make life a LOT easier. Programs such as gated which install themselves in /etc as the default also drive me crazy. Now, back on topic, if you need to share a file NIS/NIS+ will work. Someone else may have a better solution, such as Samba. David Bristel Apart from /etc/mtab (which can be linked to /proc/mounts) normaly nothing gets written to /etc and / can be ro. For diskless systems /usr/etc and /usr/share/etc could reduce the size of the ramdisk or root fs needed to boot and more data could be shared across a pool. Alternatively /etc/share/, /etc/arch and /etc/local could be used. Just as one likes. May the Source be with you. Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Config files are, by their nature, host-specific, and should not be in
/usr
They are not. e.g. /etc/hosts should be the same across a pool. Nearly
all files in /etc can be shared and none should be rewritten on the
fly.
Agreed. My diskless package needlessly has to copy the entire
contents of /etc for every host, since it cannot be shared.
However, how would you distinguish a shareable config file from a
non-shareable config file? eg would {samba,squid,etc} be sharable???
(not that you would normally run these on a diskless system).
I think if you are going to use /usr/etc, programs should first check
/etc, in case the system administrator wishes to override the sharable
config file for the given host.
IMHO, only a few files in /etc are not sharable, eg /etc/hostname
/etc/mailname, /etc/news/whoami (I may have these names wrong), possibly
mail configuration, network configuration (actually, this is sharable if
kernel level auto IP configuration is enabled). Please tell me if I missed
anything.
On the downside, it is possible that it might simplify my diskless
package (need to think about this more). Yuck - can't have that ;-).
Apart from /etc/mtab (which can be linked to /proc/mounts) normaly
nothing gets written to /etc and / can be ro. For diskless systems
/usr/etc and /usr/share/etc could reduce the size of the ramdisk or
root fs needed to boot and more data could be shared across a pool.
Alternatively /etc/share/, /etc/arch and /etc/local could be
used. Just as one likes.
I prefer /usr/etc, as this means a seperate mount point is
not required, as /usr is already shared.
--
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 08:31:02PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Config files are, by their nature, host-specific, and should not be in
/usr
They are not. e.g. /etc/hosts should be the same across a pool. Nearly
all files in /etc can be shared and none should be rewritten on the
fly.
Agreed. My diskless package needlessly has to copy the entire
contents of /etc for every host, since it cannot be shared.
However, how would you distinguish a shareable config file from a
non-shareable config file? eg would {samba,squid,etc} be sharable???
(not that you would normally run these on a diskless system).
I think if you are going to use /usr/etc, programs should first check
/etc, in case the system administrator wishes to override the sharable
config file for the given host.
This is a good idea for programs that live in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, but
would require program support to check for configs in multiple locations.
However, I suggest that programs living in /bin and /sbin MUST have
their configs in /etc in case /usr is not available.
IMHO, only a few files in /etc are not sharable, eg /etc/hostname
/etc/mailname, /etc/news/whoami (I may have these names wrong), possibly
mail configuration, network configuration (actually, this is sharable if
kernel level auto IP configuration is enabled). Please tell me if I missed
anything.
See above.
On the downside, it is possible that it might simplify my diskless
package (need to think about this more). Yuck - can't have that ;-).
Apart from /etc/mtab (which can be linked to /proc/mounts) normaly
nothing gets written to /etc and / can be ro. For diskless systems
/usr/etc and /usr/share/etc could reduce the size of the ramdisk or
root fs needed to boot and more data could be shared across a pool.
Alternatively /etc/share/, /etc/arch and /etc/local could be
used. Just as one likes.
I prefer /usr/etc, as this means a seperate mount point is
not required, as /usr is already shared.
--
Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Steve Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Buckeye, AZ
Powered by Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 03:43:07AM -0700, Steve Bowman wrote: I think if you are going to use /usr/etc, programs should first check /etc, in case the system administrator wishes to override the sharable config file for the given host. This is a good idea for programs that live in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, but would require program support to check for configs in multiple locations. However, I suggest that programs living in /bin and /sbin MUST have their configs in /etc in case /usr is not available. What files would you consider fall into this catagory? -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 09:20:32PM +1000, Brian May wrote: On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 03:43:07AM -0700, Steve Bowman wrote: I think if you are going to use /usr/etc, programs should first check /etc, in case the system administrator wishes to override the sharable config file for the given host. This is a good idea for programs that live in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, but would require program support to check for configs in multiple locations. However, I suggest that programs living in /bin and /sbin MUST have their configs in /etc in case /usr is not available. What files would you consider fall into this catagory? Well, I was speaking hypothetically; however, I just did a quick check on the 780 packages I have installed as follows (extracted from history): 600 cd /var/lib/dpkg/info 603 egrep ^/bin/|^/sbin/ *.list /tmp/tmp.pkginfo 605 cd /tmp 607 cut -f1 -d':' tmp.pkginfo | sort -u /tmp/tmp.pkginfo2 610 sed s/\.list$// tmp.pkginfo2 tmp.pkginfo3 616 for i in `cat tmp.pkginfo3`; do cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/$i.conffiles; done tmp.pkginfo4 2/dev/null And here's the output file (tmp.pkginfo4): /etc/ae.rc /etc/profile /etc/skel/.bash_profile /etc/skel/.bashrc /etc/console-tools/config /etc/init.d/keymaps-lct.sh /etc/init.d/console-screen.sh /etc/init.d/hwtools /etc/isapnp.conf /etc/init.d/isapnp /etc/isapnp.gone /etc/security/access.conf /etc/security/group.conf /etc/security/limits.conf /etc/security/pam_env.conf /etc/security/time.conf /etc/conf.linuxconf /etc/init.d/linuxconf /etc/logrotate.d/linuxconf /etc/pam.d/linuxconf /etc/login.defs /etc/pam.d/login /etc/pam.d/su /etc/init.d/logoutd /etc/init.d/makedev /etc/init.d/mdutils /etc/mgetty/login.config /etc/mgetty/dialin.config /etc/mgetty/sendfax.config /etc/mgetty/mgetty.config /etc/mgetty/new_fax /etc/cron.daily/mgetty /etc/issue.mgetty /etc/cron.d/modutils /etc/init.d/modutils /etc/init.d/kerneld /etc/modules /etc/modutils/aliases /etc/modutils/paths /etc/modutils/arch/i386 /etc/modutils/arch/m68k.generic /etc/modutils/arch/m68k.amiga /etc/modutils/arch/m68k.atari /etc/modutils/arch/m68k.mac /etc/init.d/inetd /etc/init.d/portmap /etc/init.d/networking /etc/cron.daily/netbase /etc/gateways /etc/protocols /etc/services /etc/hosts.allow /etc/hosts.deny /etc/rpc /etc/network/interfaces /etc/netgroup /etc/init.d/nis /etc/ypserv.conf /etc/ypserv.securenets /etc/yp.conf /var/yp/Makefile /etc/init.d/setserial /etc/serial.conf /etc/syslog.conf /etc/init.d/sysklogd /etc/cron.daily/sysklogd /etc/cron.weekly/sysklogd /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh /etc/init.d/checkroot.sh /etc/init.d/halt /etc/init.d/hostname.sh /etc/init.d/mountall.sh /etc/init.d/mountnfs.sh /etc/init.d/reboot /etc/init.d/rmnologin /etc/init.d/sendsigs /etc/init.d/single /etc/init.d/umountfs /etc/init.d/urandom /etc/init.d/hwclock.sh /etc/fdprm /etc/pam.d/kbdrate And then, there's the packages I don't have installed that didn't get checked. I think there's a few files missing that are built during installation, by postinst's, or by hand, too, including /etc/hosts (you or someone already mentioned) /etc/fstab /etc/lilo.conf /etc/exports and there may be others since searching for these isn't so easy. Some of these could probably be shared anyway, such as /etc/login.defs to establish a common policy across machines or /etc/init.d/halt since there's no obvious reason why it needs to be customized. In fact, most of the init.d scripts could probably be shared But again, what if /usr isn't available because, say, the network's down. BTW, I *like* the idea of moving stuff out of /etc to /usr/etc or maybe /usr/local/etc. It's not the /etc is too big, it's too messy. I just think that stuff in /bin and /sbin set an upper bound on what can be moved without breaking things. Regards, Steve Bowman -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Steve Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Buckeye, AZ Powered by Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 05:30:13AM -0700, Steve Bowman wrote: BTW, I *like* the idea of moving stuff out of /etc to /usr/etc or maybe /usr/local/etc. It's not the /etc is too big, it's too messy. I just think that stuff in /bin and /sbin set an upper bound on what can be moved without breaking things. Sorry to reply to my own post, but I think I overstated my case a little bit on two counts First, I should have said *risk* of breaking things. Of course they'll work fine normally. Second, the search I did makes an unstated assumption since it was done by package. There may be packages that have multiple binaries and the conffiles are used by binaries in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin and not even used by the binaries in /bin or /sbin. I don't have an easy answer for how to winnow out unneeded conffiles to remove this assumption. Probably case-by-case examination is needed. Regards, Steve Bowman
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Richard Kaszeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin Schulze writes (Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?): Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: Just a quick inquiry -- Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND Because configuration belongs to /etc. Period. Good point, but etc blows up to quite a size and can´t be shared across hosts. ... Config files are, by their nature, host-specific, and should not be in /usr They are not. e.g. /etc/hosts should be the same across a pool. Nearly all files in /etc can be shared and none should be rewritten on the fly. Apart from /etc/mtab (which can be linked to /proc/mounts) normaly nothing gets written to /etc and / can be ro. For diskless systems /usr/etc and /usr/share/etc could reduce the size of the ramdisk or root fs needed to boot and more data could be shared across a pool. Alternatively /etc/share/, /etc/arch and /etc/local could be used. Just as one likes. May the Source be with you. Goswin
/usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Just a quick inquiry -- Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND allow it, even encourage it. It seems like a perfectly reasonable arrangement to me Anything that's not needed for critical functionality (recovery purposes) is supposed to live on the /usr partition, correct? Maybe I have it all wrong. Enlighten me please ;) -- ..Aaron Van Couwenberghe... [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Berlin: http://www.berlin-consortium.org Debian GNU/Linux: http://www.debian.org There are three kinds of people in this world: those who can count and those who can't.
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: Just a quick inquiry -- Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND Because configuration belongs to /etc. Period. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Previously Martin Schulze wrote: Because configuration belongs to /etc. Period. And because configuration is dynamic, while things in /usr are not. Wichert. -- == This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/ pgpFWR9HO1HvL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
Martin Schulze writes (Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?): Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: Just a quick inquiry -- Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND Because configuration belongs to /etc. Period. That, and I didn't see /usr/etc listed in the FHS 2.0. It *was* in the FSSTND. Config files are, by their nature, host-specific, and should not be in /usr -- Richard W Kaszeta PhD. Candidate and Sysadmin [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of MN, ME Dept http://www.menet.umn.edu/~kaszeta
Re: /usr/etc and /usr/local/etc?
At 16:42 -0700 1999-09-22, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote: Why is it that we exclude /usr/etc from our distribution? FHS and FSSTND allow it, even encourage it. The FHS neither allows nor encourages /usr/etc; that would be against one of the stated goals of the FHS, which is that /usr is static, and shareable between machines of the same architecture. -- Joel Klecker (aka Espy)Debian GNU/Linux Developer URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://web.espy.org/ URL:http://www.debian.org/
