Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:24:15 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Will Andrews <will@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Return of config files to ^/etc Message-ID: <e1a33a28-e584-5e09-2010-72f2e7c1e5d4@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADBaqmiNf%2BrSbkNE-nkZCPZ7cR9Y1Ja9BhuwshjRMWg80G73Og@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACNAnaE5kUuJiDOHtJSE357iiFrA2JQbNuEyLh5yZgU98X_t2g@mail.gmail.com> <CADBaqmgT032s38VjZO%2B0dELSLwW16PY-NY2Ky%2Bn3T8Rbn6SHWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfopmua8LJJV-Z-%2Bb9Gq0z_DYxXJsarwhFFQOBdEiBhKZw@mail.gmail.com> <CADBaqmiNf%2BrSbkNE-nkZCPZ7cR9Y1Ja9BhuwshjRMWg80G73Og@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/19/20 7:14 AM, Will Andrews wrote: > The new locations are actually less "arbitrary" (to use your word) than > ^/etc, since the config files are co-located with the code that reads > them. This is nice for source management: there's no need to look in or > manage other directories for related files like the default configuration. > It is a *source* tree, after all. > > Here's a question: why are config files special? Why don't we store all > man pages in ^/share/man/manX, instead of colocating them with their source > files? Yes, why are (some) config files special? Why is rc.d still intact but just moved to a more obscure location (libexec/rc). Why is pam.d still intact and not split up? Why is stdio.h in include/? Both the old and new arrangements are arbitrary, so why gratuitously break existing muscle memory and setups (we've already moved the libc ones back to etc/ in head due to breaking other tools)? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e1a33a28-e584-5e09-2010-72f2e7c1e5d4>