or why not ask lsb to consider this (if they
are not already doing so).
~Randy
___________________________________________________
|Randy Dunlap Intel Corp., DAL Sr. SW Engr.|
|randy.dunlap.at.intel.com 503-696-2055|
|NOTE: Any views presented here are mine alone |
|and may not represent the views of my employer. |
|_________________________________________________|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Demenshin [mailto:aldem-linux@aldem.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 12:02 PM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: [RFC] Should /proc/(foo) be /etc/dynamic/(foo) ?
>
>
> On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 02:02:25PM -0400,
> dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
>
> > 1) The use of ASCII text files for system/program configuration is a
> > Goodness.
>
> So-so - it is good for humans but not so good for computers
> (why should
> some process parse configuration every time? it could be better to
> pre-parse it - otherwise we spent a lot of CPU cycles to do
> parsing).
> BTW, current concept of /proc (text data in human readable
> form) is extremely
> slow comparing to "raw" access (through ioctl() for example).
> (Hey, CPU power is not limitless :))
>
> > 2) Grouping these ASCII configuration files in a common
> place (instead of
> > scattering them throughout the system) is also a goodness
>
> Sure - good idea.
>
> > 3) There exists a mountpoint that (mostly) contains these files in a
> > (mostly) common space - /etc
>
> In this case - why /etc? Why not /config, /system or
> /setup? If you plan to change
> defaults anyway - why not to choose the proper name? ;)
>
> > 4) This implies that /etc, as well as being a filesystem, is also a
> > hierarchical registry/namespace of sorts. Poorly organized,
> with way too
> > much stuff at the root level of the hierarchy, but still a registry.
>
> You forgot about /usr(/local)?/lib - also a lot of config
> files and so on.
> And, BTW, it looks more organized rather than current /etc :)
>
> > 2) Move the special files that change system
> operation/configuration out of
> > /proc (which really should be just for processes) into an
> /etc root level
> > mountpoint, perhaps as /etc/dynamic or some such.
>
> Well... I see that this is for Linux 3.* :)) Nice idea,
> though... At current
> stage it can be implemented using symlinks, BTW. Like:
>
> /config/kernel -> /proc/sys
>
> > 3) On a related pet peeve, standardize on a ~/etc directory to store
> > user-specific configuration files/directories, instead of a billion
> > freakin' dotfiles in the user root directory
>
> This point is related nearly exclusively to user space, so
> it is better to discuss
> it with application developers (ha-ha, lets try to do it)
> :)) You just cannot force
> authors to use it with help of kernel :)
>
> > Comments?
>
> Above ;) IMHO, of course. Just comments. My own vision(s).
> Nothing more :)
>
> /Al
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST