[csw-maintainers] Adjusting $(DIRPATHS) for sparse zones support with shared /opt

[Mike Watters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ben Walton wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Wed Jun 17 09:47:45 -0400 2009:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:08:56AM +0200, Sebastian Kayser wrote:
>>> Philip Brown wrote:
>>>> Sometimes, it is DESIRABLE to have the configs globally in /opt/csw/etc.
>>> Does "desirable" go hand in hand with the core notion of this thread to
>>> change the default $(sysconfdir) to /etc/opt/csw? Have all configuration
>>> files in /etc/opt/csw eventually unless a maintainer decides otherwise
>>> for his packages?
>> "defaults" are usually set to be whatever is used most commonly.
>> my non-quantified belief is that most of our packages that have config
>> files, are/should have them in /etc/opt/csw
>> If so, then the default should point to there.
> 
> I'm combining threads here, since they are of overlapping subject matter.
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:08:21PM +0200, rupert THURNER wrote:
>>> this does not mean that the default /opt/csw/etc goes away, isn't it?
>> nope.
> 
> ...but, if the GAR default is changed, it will gradually become less
> prominent.  Lets have a real discussion about this, weighing pros and
> cons of the move from a default of /opt/csw/etc to a default of
> /etc/opt/csw.
> 
> Pros:
> 
> 1. A single /etc tree (eventually), and not including some of the sfw
>    stuff, etc.
a single etc tree can be accomplished with either directory

> 
> 2. Still maintains a partition between system packages and csw
>    packages that might overlap.
> 
> Cons:
> 
> 1. For people sharing out a single install (possibly per $arch) with
>    NFS, /etc/opt/csw may make things more difficult, although I'd
>    argue that symlinks could work around this quite easily.  [For
>    people in this situation, would creating symlinks for you?]
symlinks may or may not work if you are trying to run on zones from a single
installation on a global zone.
> 
> 2. Potentially painful for maintainers during the transition.
yes, but I wouldn't consider that a con per se
> 
> 3. User confusion during the transition, although I'd argue it's
>    already a confusing situation.
not just confusing for the users, confusing for the maintainers as well, at
least for me. -- but that is not saying much ;-)
> 
> Personally, I really dislike having multiple etc directories...it
> feels wrong to me, but that is likely due to my Linux roots where the
> FHS has been in place for a long time and it isn't carrying some of
> the legacy aspects that make solaris attractive in other ways.  I also
> dislike having /opt/csw/apache2/etc and would prefer
> /etc/opt/csw/apache2, for example.
I agree with that, anything that has it's own etc tree should be consolidated
to whatever "new standard" location is chosen.
> 
> Should this discussion be taken to users@ to 'poll the audience'?
I think it is a good Idea to take it to the users.  ultimately they are the
ones driving this project, without them our work is moot.


- --

Thanks,
Mike

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex,
and more violent.  It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage --
to move in the opposite direction."

* Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
    US German-born Theoretical Physicist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (SunOS)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAko6ZaIACgkQLrhmsXMSLxcV/gCffjgNpSNKCvBYOJZfpYXFHz61
CYsAoMDYLB/xMounpQG61d+D52sndjBu
=ByWA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----