[csw-maintainers] [csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs mutt, mutt_base, mutt_ncurses, mutt_slang

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Phil,

Am 20.09.2010 um 21:10 schrieb Philip Brown:
> On 9/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Am 18.09.2010 um 16:51 schrieb Philip Brown:
>> ...
>>> the reason I'm being particular about this, is that it would seem far
>>> more likely to me for a site to want to have all machines deploy mutt
>>> with the SAME configuration.(and I have had specific experience as a
>>> site admin doing this with mutt )
>>> 
>>> Putting the default location in /etc makes that much more difficult.
>>> whereas if you put the default in /opt/csw/etc, they could make it a
>>> symlink, in the unlikely event they wanted zones to be different
>> 
>> Either way, by symlinking /etc/opt/csw/muttrc to /opt/csw/etc/muttrc or
>> vice versa you can have the desired behaviour.
> 
> That has the same behaviour for an end user, but not for sysadmin.
> If you say the default is /etc/opt/csw/muttrc, and you then require to
> symlink back to /opt/csw/etc for supporting a single global config..
> the admin then has to hit Every Single Machine, and make that symlink.
> That can be irritating to maintain, for a site that is centered around
> global configurations, like a simple shared /opt/csw

If we deliver to /opt/csw/etc and the sysadmin wants to have different
configurations he has to copy the configuration manually over. The
(open) question is what is the most common use case.

> *our* "user" is the sysadmin, and we are supposed to be making things
> easier for "our users".
> 
>> That being said I would
>> value consistency higher than to select where configs are put on a
>> package-by-package basis. And as we have decided with /etc/opt/csw as
>> default for configurations I think it is better to put everything in
>> there as you can still link back if you need it.
> 
> "consistency" does not mean "no exceptions". Also, I believe that
> there was still agreed support for global, non-/etc/opt
> configurations, *IF* it makes more sense.

IIRC we agreed to allow /opt/csw/etc when there is *no benefit*
in having multiple copies of the same file in /etc/opt/csw.

> So then the question is, does it make more sense?

Yes.

> Do you agree, or disagree, with my premise, that it is "[far more]
> likely ...for a site to want to have all machines deploy mutt with the
> SAME configuration."

This heavily depends on your usecase. If you have a zone-per-user
you are right. If you are hosting zones with dedicated interfaces
in the zone and customer-specific configuration you are wrong.

The main argument is: I shifted the location to /etc/opt/csw two
releases ago which you accepted and I don't want to ping-pong
the configuration depending on where the vane is pointing.


Best regards

  -- Dago