On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 10:38:38AM -0700, systmkor wrote:
>## Reasons Why
>This allows for a flexible and reliable means of configuration
>management (i.e. at least for the configuration of system & daemon
>configurations). Either a user/admin can use the system default
>configuration packages that are provided by the package repositories,
>use the configuration packages on ones private repository, not install
>the configuration files for packages using configuration management
>instead (e.g. ansible), or any combination of.
>This would allow for users & admins to provide their own ‘-conf’
>packages instead of having to build their own base package <pkgname>
>only changing the configuration file, or having to build their own
><pkgname>-conf. The issue with first option is that users would have
>to manage official aports packages with each ‘pkgrel’ change with the
>user’s own. The issue with the second option is that providing ones
>own ‘<pkgname>-conf’ package would have to use the ‘replaces' &
>‘replaces_priority’ in that packages APKBUILD file, which can result
>in issues when the base package is upgraded.
At risk of sounding like a pooper, my gut feeling is that this goes
against some of the things I think Alpine Linux is all about:
It would introduce a dependency between base package and conf package,
while Alpine Linux tries to minimize any dependency by design.
mysoftware will run without /usr/share/man/man7/mysoftware.gz <- no dependency
mysoftware will *not* run without /etc/mysoftware.conf <- evil dependency
It violates the second "S" Commandment in the Holy Alpine Linux
Triptych, which is "Simple" (flanked, as you know, by Small and Secure).
I just think software configuration management is outside the scope of conveyance.
Received on Fri Jun 10 2016 - 13:04:41 UTC