|From:||"Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sat, 05 Jan 2008 18:12:02 +0000|
Victor Balada Diaz wrote:On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 04:02:43PM +0100, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:+1Victor Balada Diaz wrote:I think /etc/settings.conf is a poor choice for a file name. It's too generic. Why don't we call it /etc/pkgs.conf or something like that?The rationale was to have a generic file to put in various settings, so that we don't have to add a file for each single configuration.
I'd like to have a config file which is similar to rc.conf, just not for rc but for the system configuration.That's a very bad idea. rc.conf does have one task, and does it well. settings.conf can be used for a lot of different apps that have nothing in common. If you look at windows world, that reminds me of the registry: one place shared by a lot of apps that have become a huge mess.
On unix world the philosophy is to have a lot of small apps that do one task and do it well, so i think that with configuration files we should do the same.
In this case i think the best thing for just one setting would be an environment variable.
Cheers, -- Thomas E. Spanjaard firstname.lastname@example.org
Description: OpenPGP digital signature