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

[Philip Brown]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:20:44PM -0400, Ben Walton wrote:
>....
> Do you agree that having two etc directories for an installation
> without nfs/zone sharing is pointless?

Why even ask that question?
So you can say, "well then, lets forget about sharing and optimize for the
 non-shared case"?


> > Not very large-scale-install friendly.
> 
> Large-scale sites are exactly the same types of installations that
> would be using cfengine/puppet/etc to manage things like this.

Some do, some dont.
Also, using cfengine or puppet to handle this, would merely be a hack
around a core problem that the package provider (ie: us) is not providing 
proper large-install aware packages in the first place!


> Do you agree that if everything were in /etc/opt/csw and a site wanted
> to share their csw install, a move on the server of /etc/opt/csw to
> /opt/csw/etc and a symlink of /etc/opt/csw -> /opt/csw/etc on the all
> machines consuming this particular /opt/csw would handle things just
> fine?  (Packages wanting/needing local customization could still
> symlink individual files to somewhere else as you noted.)

That is ugly.

Besides, you may just as equally say, "everything should use /opt/csw/etc,
 and people who want local configs, should symlink /opt/csw/etc
 ->/etc/opt/csw"

> It would also be nice, but difficult to determine, how many sites
> actually use csw like this.  1%?  5%?  More?  Less?
> 

I dont think this is a good question to base decisions on.
Again, it has behind it, the mindset and assumption of,
"well, most of our 'customers' are not large scale, so lets ignore what
  suits large scale".

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your questions seem to come from a basis of,
[I dont care about large installs, i just want to do whats easiest/tidiest
 for me]

is that accurate?