"Chatty" config files in /etc

[Tom Rhodes]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:28:34 +0400
Ruslan Ermilov <ru at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:41:51PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> > [perhaps this should be continued on freebsd-arch?]
> > 
> I think this is too simple material for freebsd-arch.  :-)
> 
> > At 1:27 PM +0200 8/30/06, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> > >>   Modified files:
> > >>     etc                  hosts.allow
> > >>   Log:
> > > >   Comment out lines that use example addresses and example.com
> > > >   names so that local changes can be made more easily (without
> > > >   having to comment these lines, and making the diff more
> > > >   readable).
> > >
> > >That reminds me - /etc/hosts is another file that mergemaster often
> > >trips over.  The comments and examples it contains should be moved
> > >to the appropriate man page(s) if they aren't there already.  In
> > >fact, we should probably remove the file from the tree, and just
> > >have sysinstall create one at install time.
> > 
> > I'm sure Ruslan didn't mean to open up this whole can of worms,
> > but I also find files like /etc/hosts, /etc/hosts.allow, and
> > /etc/pf.conf to be annoying when it comes to system upgrades.
> > 
> Well, I'm happy to open it in (what seems to be) the right direction
> since it also looks very annoying to me.
> 
> > They're meant to be helpful, but they're so chatty with comments,
> > and they are files that I *always* have to localize with my own
> > changes.  It is annoying when it seems like one of these files
> > pop up in mergemaster every single time I upgrade, and it's
> > almost always due to a change in some line that does not actually
> > effect anything.  I mean, I can understand it's useful to correct
> > comments in the file, but my already-running system is not going
> > to run any differently with the correct comment than the incorrect
> > comment.
> > 
> > I do think those comments and examples are useful, but it might be
> > better to move those lines into separate files.  We could move them
> > into man pages, but then they won't be available on systems which
> > have NO_MAN set.  I also think that for these files, there is some
> > advantage in having the info as plain-text files, and not all
> > spruced up with nroff commands.  I wonder if it would be better to
> > have the comments and examples as files under /etc/defaults.  I
> > suppose they could also go under /usr/share/examples, but for these
> > files I think there is some advantage that the comments and examples
> > be on '/', and not on '/usr'.
> > 
> > Also, if the comment+example files are under /etc/defaults, then
> > changes to them *will* come up in mergemaster.  It's just that
> > now they will show up in a file that has no local changes, so
> > the user can just read the change, instead of having to "merge"
> > all their local changes with the new official version.
> > 
> I think they should be moved to /usr/share/examples/etc/ (like
> make.conf), with files in /etc/ representing good (short) defaults
> with a minimum of comments and probably references to examples.
> Like no /etc/hosts.allow file at all:
> 
> """
> A non-existing access control file is treated as if it were an empty
> file. Thus, access control can be turned off by providing no access
> control files.
> """

Question is, what files will be moved?  All configuration files
or just "some" ?

-- 
Tom Rhodes