> On May 13, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev <da...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:24:20AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: >> ... >> The evolution for years has been away from monolithic config files >> containing a mashup of values for unrelated subsystems and towards >> .conf.d directories containing many single-subject files. > > This "evolution" had probably originated in people's minds who know little > about software development and maintenance. And FWIW, newsyslog files are > not about "unrelated subsystems", it's about one subsystem responsible for > log rotation.
This hasn’t really changed with moving to .conf.d. A single subsystem is managing a series of modular config files, instead of a single config file. I firmly believe that this was the right general approach to go. > Speaking of "unrelated subsystems", /etc/rc.conf is a living manifestation > of how "unrelated subsystems" can be configured in a single file and, mind > you, everyone is being quite happy about it. … except people have to bake in defaults in rc.d scripts for whether or not services should be disabled because they can’t put apache defaults in /etc/rc.conf . /etc/rc.conf isn’t managed via etcupdate or mergemaster, so I think this comparison is like apples to oranges. >> The monolithic files are difficult to edit > > Quite on the contrary: monolithic files are much easier to edit and keep > track of by a human being (system operator). I strongly disagree, having seen multiple configuration files a couple hundred lines long. It gets messy and for those who don’t understand how syslogd/newsyslog works (inevitably, these people are the ones that get charged with implementing daemons, and this is one of the pieces that needs to be done). >> and otherwise manage programmatically, and especially difficult to manage >> in terms of software packaging and software updates. > > Please don't mix "difficult to edit" and "manage programmatically". As I > have said, having support for "include *.conf.d" makes sense for 3rd-party > software (read: ports), but has little need for the base, and IMHO brings > more maintenance burden than any benefit. Can you please provide an example of how it’s more burdensome going to .conf.d? Personally, I think it’s a whole lot easier doing `rm -f /etc/newsyslog.d/amd.conf`, than it is to open up the file and edit out the amd entries, or invoke sed/something else to do the same thing. Even ansible/chef/puppet would have to bake the configuration removal logic into its template files, which seems like a pain for folks (and the same logic would need to be implemented multiple times instead of once). Thanks, -Ngie
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
