Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Jari Aalto wrote:
>> The problems in the package were identified as follows: >> >> (1) /etc/dropbear/run is an executable > There's nothing wrong with having executables in /etc, so long as they > are not binaries. /etc/dropbear/run is "a local file used to control > the operation of a program",[1] so it's perfectly reasonable to have > it in /etc. >> (2) /etc/dropbear/log is a symlink pointing to /var/log/dropbear > If /etc/dropbear/log is a file controling the location of the log > files (and thus, controling the operation of the program), I don't see > the problem with the FHS. I agree. This type of configuration is the best way of handling software run by daemontools or any of its variations that I think we've come up with, and seems like a reasonable approach to me. (Better, for instance, than putting all of the configuration into /var.) >> 1) Symlinks >> >> I: Symlinks are "not real configuration files" as per FHS. > The FHS doesn't address this point at all; while it may be problematic > technically for VCS systems without support for symlinks, it's not > precluded by the FHS. [And given how many symlinks are in /etc, (on my > laptop, I cound 1430[2]), a VCS which can't handle it isn't going to be > particularly useful for managing /etc.] Yup. There are *many* packages in the archive that use symlinks in /etc. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
