On Aug 19,  2:48pm, Robert Elz wrote:
} From:        der Mouse  <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
} | Robert Elz wrote:
} 
}   | > I want the "global conf file" to simply go away,
}   | 
}   | It can never truly go away; the information about what needs to be done
}   | before what under what circumstances has to be kept *somewhere*.
} 
} No, you misunderstood (or I wasn't clear enough, which is perhaps more
} likely).  I don't want the global config information to go away, I want
} the global config *file* to go away.

     That's nice.  However, there are a bunch of us that want it to
stay, because removing it would make our lives as administrator's far
more difficult.  I know it would make mine far more difficult (I've
used most versions of SysV and it is a pain in the neck to
administrate).  Why should your needs and/or desires take precedence
over other peoples?

}   | The most it can do is spread out all over the place so it looks as though
}   | it's gone away because it's not collected together in a single place.
} 
} The single file will go away, and the information will settle wherever

     Says who?  As of this moment, you're not even on the list of
contributors (although you are listed as contributing to CSRG) much
less being listed as having any kind of authority.  I just checked at
http://www.netbsd.org/People/ .

} it falls lowest ...   It isn't as if we have one single global config
} file for everything now anyway (if that were true, then there might be
} some kind of argument for keeping it) - we already have separate config
} files for all kinds of things, that are managed separately, and then this
} one other file that contains a whole bunch of miscellaneous config info
} for all kinds of other odds and ends.   Since I doubt that we're about to
} start merging the ssh apache amanda Xserver  ... configs all into one
} place (into one file - or even really into files in one dedicated directory)

     reductio ab absurdum!  ssh, apache, amanda, and Xserver are all
applications, not part of the OS.  Their configs don't belong in rc.conf
which is an OS config file.  Nobody is arguing for a "Registry".

} I suggest that moving everything into distributed config files is more
} consistent.

     Why?  Most applications only use one config file (or a handful at
most), not a hundred.

}   | The current rc.d paradigm begins this, by spreading some of that
}   | information out over a bunch of PROVIDES: and REQUIRES: lines scattered
}   | throughout rc.d/*.
} 
} Yes - the point was that we're only half done, rc.conf still exists,
} and that's a mistake.   Aside from anything else it means that only root

     That's your opinion.  Stop stating your opinions as fact.

} can change the options to any of the daemons, no matter what, and anyone
} granted permission to change any option can change all of them.  It also

     Yeah, so?  I don't see this as being a problem, except in very
rare circumstances.  In which case, maybe a different operating system
would be more suitable.  I did read your description of why you want
this in a later note, but I don't agree with it.  I'm not saying that
when you have a team of sysadmins that all members should have the root
password; but, if you have a team of only a half dozen members and you
can't trust each of them with general sudo access then something is
wrong!

} makes arranging config of any of this with anything more integrated to
} an editor quite difficult.

     As long as the file keeps a defined format, this isn't true.  If
somebody violates the defined format, then they probably don't care
about automated tools.

}-- End of excerpt from Robert Elz