Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 16:51:45 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: rgrimes@freebsd.org, Ngie Cooper <ngie@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r318250 - in head: etc etc/newsyslog.conf.d etc/syslog.d tools/build/mk Message-ID: <20170513165145.GC84947@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1494692660.59865.85.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201705131537.v4DFbgWV045290@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <1494692660.59865.85.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. 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. > 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). > 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. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170513165145.GC84947>