On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 6:29 PM Andy Smith <a...@strugglers.net> wrote: > > [...] > > There have even been some arguments that the relatively recent trend of > providing .d directories and support for config fragment inclusion has > been added predominantly by software coming from distribution ecosystems > that lack decent support for config file upgrades, as their means of > handling that deficiency. I don't know how much I agree with that as, > even in Debian, it is an issue that it is forbidden by policy for one > package to meddle with the configuration files of another package, so > config file fragments were a way to solve that one.
Also see <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/04/msg00352.html>. It is from debian-devel circa 2010. The impression I got was, configuration directories were driven by distro packaging and the need to merge different config fragments. To wit: | When distribution packaging became more and more common, it became | clear that we needed better ways of forming such configuration files | out of multiple fragments, often provided by multiple independent | packages. Each package that needs to configure some shared service | should be able to manage only its configuration without having to edit | a shared configuration file used by other packages. Jeff
