Subject: Re: Keeping /etc/defaults and /etc/rc.d in-sync
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 12/26/2001 22:59:12
> Since the system-provided scripts and defaults files are not meant to
> be modified by the end-user, [...]
I'm not surprised to hear this, though it seems to me like a rather
sleazy way of sliding this change in. (Yes, it is a change; it didn't
used to be the case that the boot scripts were not considered
user-modifiable.) "You'll run what we provide, and like it."
Of course, if you _don't_ mean that, then you need to have some way for
the user to eliminate or replace existing scripts without having those
changes bashed, or add new ones without risking having them stomped on
when someone thinks to add a new one to the base system which happens
to have the same name.
Or else we need to document "make build" as, loosely speaking,
equivalent to "make DESTDIR=/ distribution". In some respects it
already is (notably, the five big executable directories and much of
/usr/share), but this chnage would move it significantly closer, and
should be clearly documented.
In any case, if this is done, it's a significant enough deviation from
existing practice that I think all the affected scripts need to acquire
big warnings "THIS SCRIPT SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED BY THE END USER;
CHANGES ARE LIKELY TO GO AWAY".
> I will commit this patch in a couple of days unless there are any
> legitimate objections (i.e. rejections of the form "I don't like
> this" are invalid -- you need to provide a valid reason WHY you don't
> like it :-)
Why, when you've provided no reason beyond "I like it"?
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML firstname.lastname@example.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B