"Chatty" config files in /etc

[Ruslan Ermilov]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:41:51PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> [perhaps this should be continued on freebsd-arch?]
> 
I think this is too simple material for freebsd-arch.  :-)

> At 1:27 PM +0200 8/30/06, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> >>   Modified files:
> >>     etc                  hosts.allow
> >>   Log:
> > >   Comment out lines that use example addresses and example.com
> > >   names so that local changes can be made more easily (without
> > >   having to comment these lines, and making the diff more
> > >   readable).
> >
> >That reminds me - /etc/hosts is another file that mergemaster often
> >trips over.  The comments and examples it contains should be moved
> >to the appropriate man page(s) if they aren't there already.  In
> >fact, we should probably remove the file from the tree, and just
> >have sysinstall create one at install time.
> 
> I'm sure Ruslan didn't mean to open up this whole can of worms,
> but I also find files like /etc/hosts, /etc/hosts.allow, and
> /etc/pf.conf to be annoying when it comes to system upgrades.
> 
Well, I'm happy to open it in (what seems to be) the right direction
since it also looks very annoying to me.

> They're meant to be helpful, but they're so chatty with comments,
> and they are files that I *always* have to localize with my own
> changes.  It is annoying when it seems like one of these files
> pop up in mergemaster every single time I upgrade, and it's
> almost always due to a change in some line that does not actually
> effect anything.  I mean, I can understand it's useful to correct
> comments in the file, but my already-running system is not going
> to run any differently with the correct comment than the incorrect
> comment.
> 
> I do think those comments and examples are useful, but it might be
> better to move those lines into separate files.  We could move them
> into man pages, but then they won't be available on systems which
> have NO_MAN set.  I also think that for these files, there is some
> advantage in having the info as plain-text files, and not all
> spruced up with nroff commands.  I wonder if it would be better to
> have the comments and examples as files under /etc/defaults.  I
> suppose they could also go under /usr/share/examples, but for these
> files I think there is some advantage that the comments and examples
> be on '/', and not on '/usr'.
> 
> Also, if the comment+example files are under /etc/defaults, then
> changes to them *will* come up in mergemaster.  It's just that
> now they will show up in a file that has no local changes, so
> the user can just read the change, instead of having to "merge"
> all their local changes with the new official version.
> 
I think they should be moved to /usr/share/examples/etc/ (like
make.conf), with files in /etc/ representing good (short) defaults
with a minimum of comments and probably references to examples.
Like no /etc/hosts.allow file at all:

"""
A non-existing access control file is treated as if it were an empty
file. Thus, access control can be turned off by providing no access
control files.
"""


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov
ru at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/attachments/20060830/284cf81f/attachment.pgp