svn commit: r318441 - in head/etc: . cron.d

Ian Lepore ian at freebsd.org
Thu May 18 21:34:42 UTC 2017


On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 23:29 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 03:27:49PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 23:24 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:48:25AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thursday, May 18, 2017 03:09:32 PM Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 02:56:31AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > The support for broken out files has long been there, but the
> > > > base
> > > > system has
> > > > not used them previously for default config shipped during a
> > > > release.  That
> > > > is in fact a new trend.
> > > > 
> > > > However, the current approach seems to be the absolute worst
> > > > way to
> > > > do this.
> > > > If someone wants to use the existing base system image and
> > > > modify
> > > > it with
> > > > config management, they now have to use a mix of styles (for
> > > > some
> > > > services
> > > > edit a global config file for certain settings, but use a
> > > > dedicated
> > > > file for
> > > > other settings for the same service, or for the same settings
> > > > but a
> > > > different
> > > > service).  It's also the worst case for humans trying to work
> > > > with
> > > > our system
> > > > as the division between which services are broken out vs global
> > > > is
> > > > inconsistent and arbitrary.
> > > > 
> > > > Once you split up the files you make a merge conflict for
> > > > anyone
> > > > trying to do
> > > > an upgrade.  If we do this piecemail then we create N merge
> > > > conflicts for users
> > > > to deal with as opposed to if you split it up all at once.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, there wasn't a clear consensus (a mail to arch@ with
> > > > "hey, we
> > > > should
> > > > switch to splitting up config files for reasons A and B and
> > > > let's
> > > > do this for
> > > > 12.0 but not merge to stable so there is a clear flag day /
> > > > sign
> > > > post for users
> > > > to manage upgrades".  Instead there have been a couple of
> > > > commits
> > > > and any
> > > > not-in-100%-agreement opinions are ignored.
> > > > 
> > > That's true, another thing is the way it is done, there is no
> > > simple
> > > way to
> > > disable the at cron from an admin point of view  rather than rm
> > > /etc/cron.d/at
> > > for an end user which an upgrade will bring back.
> > > 
> > > Bapt
> > Would you not just comment out or delete the line, exactly as you
> > would
> > do in the main /etc/crontab?
> Right but with a .d directory I would expect to just remove/add
> files/symlinks
> rather than editing it, which defeat the point of the .d
> 
> Bapt

Hrm, I don't see any conflict between "this fine-grained file holds
config for just one component" and "edit the file if you want to change
the config".  That is, making the file fine-grained is to make editing
it EASIER (for a human or a program), not to eliminate editing it.

I do see how thinking that deleting the file (or renaming it to file.no
or something) would seem like the right thing to do.  How can we fix
that?

-- Ian



More information about the svn-src-all mailing list