On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 05:08, Havoc Pennington wrote: > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 04:53, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le mar 22/06/2004 à 00:36, Ross Burton a écrit : > > > Havoc's points and arguments for not moving the installed defaults to > > > /var make sense to me, and I now don't see any problems with the current > > > setup in /etc/gconf. It's a small problem that there are > > > package-generated defaults in /etc which shouldn't be modified by the > > > local administrator, > > > > If they shouldn't be modified, they shouldn't go in /etc. > > Really, this is identical to shipping a config file with various > settings, and the local admin changes some and some of them remain what > shipped with the OS. > > gconf.xml.defaults/* is conceptually one big config file. > > Many packages have a default config file and then can include site-local > changes in a "local.conf" or a ".d" directory; in that case, do you put > the default config file in /var? The gconf case is the same. Agreed. > > Maybe a compromise would be to move only > > /etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults/schemas to /var and setup a symlink. If > > these files must not be modified by the administrator, the directory > > structure has to reflect it. > > I think you guys missed one of my suggestions. If you want to move the > installed schemas to /var, what you need to do is put this in > /etc/gconf/2/path: > > xml:readonly:/etc/gconf/gconf.xml.defaults > xml:readonly:/var/lib/gconf/gconf.xml.schemas > > Then have the schemas install to gconf.xml.schemas, and have admins edit > gconf.xml.defaults. > > However, moving gconf.xml.defaults to /var is wrong. If you want the > package-managed stuff in /var then OK, but don't move gconf.xml.defaults > there, that is just broken. Also agreed. > However, I'll repeat my caveat on this whole thing: the #1 problem with > gconf today is that most admins do not understand the > defaults/schemas-files/schemas-objects/installation/etc. mess (and based > on this thread, neither does anyone else... ;-)) I wonder if the GNOME 2 Administrators Guide covers GConf architecture from the sysadmin point of view. If so, that needs packaging asap. > So we should be really careful that whatever we're doing makes this all > simpler, not harder. If you guys are going to spend a lot of time on > this, I'd say a suggestion like the one in my blog to simply not install > schemas to the gconf sources at all might be the way to go. > (http://log.ometer.com/2004-03.html#1) I don't *know* this is the way to > go (there are certain problems we'd have to solve - some gconf keys are > shared by a bunch of apps is the main one :-/) but it'd be worth > thinking about. Personally, I don't think we can spend a lot of time on this *now*. We've got Sarge to release, GNOME has 2.8 to release, and this topic needs more thinking about. As I see it my previous proposal is still good. Josselin? Ross -- Ross Burton mail: ross burtonini com jabber: ross burtonini com www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part