[fhs-discuss] Common directory for configuration files below /usr

Frans de Boer frans at fransdb.nl
Wed Jun 12 19:35:49 UTC 2019


On 12-06-19 11:16, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> over 5 years ago, there was a discussion about OSTree and /usr/etc.
> (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fhs-discuss/2014-March/000440.html)
> Unfortunatley, this did not lead to an agreement, instead hiding this
> below /usr/lib or /usr/share was suggested.
>
> During the years, the problem didn't go away or solved themself, but
> with many additional Linux Distributions using atomic updates, the
> problem got really worse. Everybody has to solve the same problem,
> everybody is coming up with their own, incompatible solution. Which
> reminds me and many others on the pre-FHS times: you have to learn
> every location new on every Linux Distribution.
>
> And not only for distributions using atomic updates this is getting a
> real problem. Many applications try to solve the problem with updating
> configuration files at their own, that's why we have many directories
> with configuration files in /usr/lib: sysctl.d, pam.d, modprobe.d, binfmt.d,
> ... and many, many more which are not simple detectable.
>
> So the common, main feedback I got in the last time in talks with people
> is: they want to have the configuration files in one place (maybe two,
> /etc and /usr/...), so that they are easy findable and grep-able.
> We are currently far away from that, and it's getting worse every day.
> There are quite some people who would like to clean this mess up immeaditly,
> but there is one big, blocking issue: there is no common directory for
> configuration files below /usr.
>
> There were many ideas. One was, like already suggested on this list,
> /usr/share/defaults. In the end it has a big problem: configuration files
> are not necessary shareable between different architectures or hosts,
> only thing about passwd and group.
> /usr/lib/ is already overcrowded, people would like to clean that up
> and only use it for object files, libraries and internal binaries, but
> no longer all stuff we don't have a better place for.
>
> So there are two suggestions from the discussions:
> 1. /usr/etc
> 2. /usr/sysconfig
>
> /usr/etc is still in use by some Linux Distributions and UNIX like
> systems. But many people don't like it.
> /usr/sysconfig is something new and the feedback was positive, at least
> many people can life with it.
>
> What are the opinions here?
>
> If you want to have more background why I'm bringing this up again:
> https://github.com/thkukuk/atomic-updates_and_etc/blob/master/README.md
> contains an analysis of the current situation and how things need to
> be changed for better support of updating configuration files.
>
>    Thanks,
>      Thorsten
>
I myself find it more logical to have just one directory albeit with 
subdirectories indicating it's use. That is /etc.
Also, SUSE itself has already the /etc/sysconfig, so why another one 
under /usr?

How do you differentiate between /etc and /usr/etc? What is their 
respective purpose?
I also expect that some distributions will make /usr/etc a link to /etc. 
Defeating its intended purpose (whatever that might be).

By the way, if it where just the naming, I would go for something like 
/usr/config(s) instead of .../etc. Then again, I do not fully understand 
why one would have configuration files under /usr where actually only 
binaries and fixed data should reside.

I can /live/ with any outcome, as long as it can be explained logically.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fhs-discuss/attachments/20190612/22f8c13b/attachment.html>


More information about the fhs-discuss mailing list