FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-18-2011, 07:34 PM
Tom Lane
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>>>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html

>> No. There is no need for a directory that replaces /etc/sysconfig. It's
>> borked. If a daemon has not configuration file but should have one, then
>> fix the daemon, don't fake a configuration file.

> Some daemons cannot be "fixed", get over with this mantra that daemons
> need be fixed Lennart.

Well, if they didn't need fixed before, they'll certainly need fixed
when you make them start keeping their configuration info someplace else
than /etc/sysconfig. This proposal sounds more like "wait, systemd has
not yet broken everything in sight, how can we solve that problem?"
than like something that will actually improve matters for anyone.

regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 07:44 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, 18.07.11 15:34, Tom Lane (tgl@redhat.com) wrote:

>
> Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>>>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html
>
> >> No. There is no need for a directory that replaces /etc/sysconfig. It's
> >> borked. If a daemon has not configuration file but should have one, then
> >> fix the daemon, don't fake a configuration file.
>
> > Some daemons cannot be "fixed", get over with this mantra that daemons
> > need be fixed Lennart.
>
> Well, if they didn't need fixed before, they'll certainly need fixed
> when you make them start keeping their configuration info someplace else
> than /etc/sysconfig. This proposal sounds more like "wait, systemd has
> not yet broken everything in sight, how can we solve that problem?"
> than like something that will actually improve matters for anyone.

What does systemd break in this regard?

The blog article even explains what you need to do when you really want
to continue using a sysconfig file.

Also, what phasing out sysconfig gains you is explained in detail in the
blog story, and that's all I have to say on this.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 07:45 PM
Adam Miller
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 09:16:13PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
<SNIP>
> Hmm? Which ones in fedora can't? Are you suggesting we are shipping
> software that cannot be modified? If so, please explain which one that
> is, since we need to remove it from the distro then. Fedora only
> includess Free Software, and software that cannot be modified would not
> qualify as that.
>
> Lennart
<SNIP>

What about /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/
... where would be a more appropriate location for those? Not saying
there isn't one, just wondering what the logical progression would be
since that's not really a daemon so much a munge of scripts and config
files that handle network bits... similar question for others like that
which have "service" entries in /etc/init.d/ but aren't actually daemons.

-AdamM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 07:59 PM
Tom Lane
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de> writes:
> On Mon, 18.07.11 15:34, Tom Lane (tgl@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Well, if they didn't need fixed before, they'll certainly need fixed
>> when you make them start keeping their configuration info someplace else
>> than /etc/sysconfig. This proposal sounds more like "wait, systemd has
>> not yet broken everything in sight, how can we solve that problem?"
>> than like something that will actually improve matters for anyone.

> What does systemd break in this regard?

There's a big difference between "a daemon might not need /etc/sysconfig
anymore once it's been fully integrated into the systemd world" and
"let's deprecate /etc/sysconfig and force packages to stop using it".
Maybe you meant the first, but it's coming across as the second.

regards, tom lane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 08:01 PM
Kay Sievers
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 21:45, Adam Miller
<maxamillion@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 09:16:13PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> Hmm? Which ones in fedora can't? Are you suggesting we are shipping
>> software that cannot be modified? If so, please explain which one that
>> is, since we need to remove it from the distro then. Fedora only
>> includess Free Software, and software that cannot be modified would not
>> qualify as that.
>>
>> Lennart
> <SNIP>
>
> What about /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/
> ... where would be a more appropriate location for those? Not saying
> there isn't one, just wondering what the logical progression would be
> since that's not really a daemon so much a munge of scripts and config
> files that handle network bits... similar question for others like that
> which have "service" entries in /etc/init.d/ but aren't actually daemons.

There are no clear plans.

If someone would come up with a unified network interface config
format all distros could use, it would go into some new top-level dir
in /etc and not in /etc/sysconfig. Until that happens we will surely
continue to use it, but look at it as 'inherited' and not something to
extend or base future work on.

What we have today is /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections/, but
that probably doesn't solve that problem.

Kay
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 08:10 PM
Kay Sievers
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 21:59, Tom Lane <tgl@redhat.com> wrote:
> Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@0pointer.de> writes:
>> On Mon, 18.07.11 15:34, Tom Lane (tgl@redhat.com) wrote:
>>> Well, if they didn't need fixed before, they'll certainly need fixed
>>> when you make them start keeping their configuration info someplace else
>>> than /etc/sysconfig. *This proposal sounds more like "wait, systemd has
>>> not yet broken everything in sight, how can we solve that problem?"
>>> than like something that will actually improve matters for anyone.
>
>> What does systemd break in this regard?
>
> There's a big difference between "a daemon might not need /etc/sysconfig
> anymore once it's been fully integrated into the systemd world" and
> "let's deprecate /etc/sysconfig and force packages to stop using it".
> Maybe you meant the first, but it's coming across as the second.

The 'force' seems to be in your head only.

We are just communicating that /etc/sysconfig should be phased out,
and no new work should be based on it. It should be seen as legacy.

Many basic configurations formerly in /etc/sysconfig we have already
move to proper /etc config files, and we might continue to do so.

/etc/sysconfig is a hack and a pretty bad idea in the first place.
Stuff should get native configurations as much as possible, not
distro-specific configs.

Some day /etc/sysconfig should be almost empty, and then we will see
what to do about it, but that might take a very long time, until then
there is no need to rush anything.

Kay
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 08:42 PM
mike cloaked
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Some daemons cannot be "fixed", get over with this mantra that daemons
>> need be fixed Lennart.
>
> If I were a betting man.... I'd wager that all the daemons we ship are
> easier to "fix" than the US deficit (in both the technical sense and
> in the sense of political will to make the necessary changes.)
>
> The necessary political will to obsolete /etc/sysconfig may not exist
> at this very moment but I think that the reasoning is sound enough
> that anticipating, identifying and mitigating potential problems the
> removal would cause seems a reasonable use of someones time to
> minimize the disruption such a removal will cause in the year or two
> leading up to it actually happening.

I guess the process can be started - but by the time it is ready for
prime time then any daemons that need to work should have been tested
to work without the need for any /etc/sysconfig/... files - just by
the way what then out of interest is the replacement for a
/etc/sysconfig/desktop file that defines which login manager should be
the default (and which is not there by default)? Can KDM then be
started when X starts and not GDM without the use of the above file?

--
mike c
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 08:57 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:46:30PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> This article recommends ending /etc/sysconfig
>
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html

I'm sympathetic to Lennart's arguments, but really this should be
discussed and decided in the context of a real, open forum, drawing
interested people from all of the Linux distros (possibly BSD etc
too). Perhaps LSB?

So I don't think changes like this, and /etc/machine-id, and
/etc/os-release and others should come by fiat, although (again) I'm
very sympathetic to why these things are being done.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 09:00 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 21:16 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 18.07.11 15:13, Simo Sorce (simo@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18.07.11 20:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp4x4@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 2011/7/18 Neal Becker <ndbecker2@gmail.com>:
> > > > > This article recommends ending /etc/sysconfig
> > > > >
> > > > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Generally speaking I like the idea of dropping /etc/sysconfig. I think
> > > > the right way it keeping minimal, standardized configuration in
> > > > /etc/services.conf/ or something like that.
> > >
> > > No. There is no need for a directory that replaces /etc/sysconfig. It's
> > > borked. If a daemon has not configuration file but should have one, then
> > > fix the daemon, don't fake a configuration file.
> >
> > Some daemons cannot be "fixed", get over with this mantra that daemons
> > need be fixed Lennart.
>
> Hmm? Which ones in fedora can't? Are you suggesting we are shipping
> software that cannot be modified? If so, please explain which one that
> is, since we need to remove it from the distro then. Fedora only
> includess Free Software, and software that cannot be modified would not
> qualify as that.

Asking some upstream to add a whole configuration file reading subsystem
to extremely simple daemons that accept a handful of command line
options can be rightfully answered with a simple "no".

Command line options are nothing wrong and have been around for ages,
there is nothing to "fix" in daemons that do not read a config file.

But most of the changes in this area look gratuitous to me. They will
cause significant changes in admin tools and configurations and
therefore significant grief.

Note that I am not necessarily against changing stuff in the long term,
when I started there was no /etc/sysconfig, and I won't cry if it goes
away and is replaced with a bunch of 'different' config files, big
deal ... same stuff just in different places, what a revolution!

But your attitude of defining 'broken' anything that doesn't conform to
your view of the world, is frankly tiring and not constructive.

Simo.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 07-18-2011, 09:11 PM
drago01
 
Default on /etc/sysconfig

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 21:16 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Mon, 18.07.11 15:13, Simo Sorce (simo@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 18.07.11 20:54, Michał Piotrowski (mkkp4x4@gmail.com) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > 2011/7/18 Neal Becker <ndbecker2@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > This article recommends ending /etc/sysconfig
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/on-etc-sysinit.html
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Generally speaking I like the idea of dropping /etc/sysconfig. I think
>> > > > the right way it keeping minimal, standardized configuration in
>> > > > /etc/services.conf/ or something like that.
>> > >
>> > > No. There is no need for a directory that replaces /etc/sysconfig. It's
>> > > borked. If a daemon has not configuration file but should have one, then
>> > > fix the daemon, don't fake a configuration file.
>> >
>> > Some daemons cannot be "fixed", get over with this mantra that daemons
>> > need be fixed Lennart.
>>
>> Hmm? Which ones in fedora can't? Are you suggesting we are shipping
>> software that cannot be modified? If so, please explain which one that
>> is, since we need to remove it from the distro then. Fedora only
>> includess Free Software, and software that cannot be modified would not
>> qualify as that.
>
> Asking some upstream to add a whole configuration file reading subsystem
> to extremely simple daemons that accept a handful of command line
> options can be rightfully answered with a simple "no".
>
> Command line options are nothing wrong and have been around for ages,
> there is nothing to "fix" in daemons that do not read a config file.
>
> But most of the changes in this area look gratuitous to me. They will
> cause significant changes in admin tools and configurations and
> therefore significant grief.
>
> Note that I am not necessarily against changing stuff in the long term,
> when I started there was no /etc/sysconfig, and I won't cry if it goes
> away and is replaced with a bunch of 'different' config files, big
> deal ... same stuff just in different places, what a revolution!

The "revolution" would be having the staff in the same location in every distro.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:46 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org