Subject: Re: use of share vs lib
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no>
Date: 08/01/1998 20:40:00
> Look at a pkg like ssh. It installs a bunch of binaries, then
> generates it's magical key, and installs config files in /etc.
> If these went into /usr/pkg/etc, then I would have to devise
> some sort of wierd symlink tree like Todd mentioned, in order
> to get things right for my multiple machines. In addition, it
> certainly isn't going to generate all the little keyfiles for 9
> machines out of the box..
I think the 'ssh' package is an example of a package where the
action of making the binary available and the action of configuring
(and enabling?) the package should be more clearly separated and
exposed as separate actions to the system administrator. If this
was done, the administrator could use a shared /usr/pkg for making
the binaries available, do the install once on the file server, but
still do the configuration and enabling on a per-host basis. With
the two (or more) actions tightly coupled there's really no clean
way to do that other than to dissect the installation procedure and
duplicating parts of it in locally maintained scripts. "Not optimal."