On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:09:49PM -0500, Hans-Peter wrote: > I have an honest question which is dead-simple: Why do we have ".d" > directories, such as "sources.d" or "grub.d", note that with grub, the > defaults are in another directory tree - this is simply beyond insane. > (Sorry to quote Linus) > I am sure this question has been asked before (I have googled for many > years and have not found an acceptable answer, the downside being having > to parse several files vs a single file) and I am more than happy to > accept "change", except that in this case it needlessly increases my > workload. With ancient UNIX systems, a sed oneliner is enough, with Linux, > I have to use "grep -r" or use "find" in combination with "sed". I > seriously think this is nonsense, there is no "logical" reason for doing > this, afaict. Have I missed something ? I have asked the question on > unix.stackexchange.com and got silly answers trying to defend the "it is > so much easier to parse x files in a directory than a single file" stance > (you gotta be kidding!).
For me, I deploy a file called /etc/sudoers.d/local on every system that I maintain which ensures that my own local user account, as well as those of other admins, always have sudo access regardless of their group memberships. Deploying that as part of a profile package that gets distributed via an internal apt repository is far simpler than monkeying with sed. It also works well for apt sources in /etc/apt/sources.list.d, dpkg preferences in /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d, and syslog configurations in /etc/rsyslog.d to name a few. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
