= phenomenon =
Recently some packages started to use '''/etc/default'''. Fedora standard has always been '''/etc/sysconfig'''.
= reason =
One no longer knows where to search for a config file.
= recommendation =
Keep the /etc/sysconfig. The other possibility is to remove /etc/sysconfig and move everything to /etc/default but I do not see a reason for it.
Arguments that some upstream package has fixed /etc/default path is irrelevant, it can be patched best to respect configure '''sysconfdir''' value where this change can be even upstreamed. Also documentation can be generated according to the configuration - GDB does so.
discussion: [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800152 link for config file in/etc/sysconfig] [http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-March/163636.html /etc/default in Fedora]
We use both /etc/sysconfig and /etc/default in Fedora (on my system, there are glibc and shadow-utils files). If those directories exist, I think we should use what upstream use if there is not a really good reason. Sure, we can patch documentation, but even if we do this, it would make confusion. I guess that when looking for solution, people use google (search for problem keywords) more often than read all documentation available and hope they will found their solution there. For "/etc/default/grub" I get 834 000 results already. We could change paths in documentation we ship, but we can't change paths in the documentation "out there".
reason: One no longer knows where to search for a config file
I think rpm -ql <package> | grep /etc works reasonably well, as it always did.
It might not be a terrible idea to consolidate them though. Perhaps we could do something similar to the UsrMove change, whereby we make /etc/default a symlink to /etc/sysconfig (or vice-versa) such that all files can be findable in either location.
This seems much more a proposal to the Fedora Packaging Comittee than FESCo.
I'd suggest submitting a proposal there to disallow /etc/default and see what guidelines they come up with around it.
(Personally, I see no reason to forbid /etc/default if upstream uses it).
"/etc/sysconfig" is in RHL, SUSE and related distribution a sub-namespace of /etc for "the distribution-integration-specific files" (often both /etc/foo and /etc/sysconfig/foo exist, even if the names are slightly different, see e.g. ssh, init, clock, cron...). /etc/default/grub is clearly an upstream config file, not a distribution-integration-specific file, so it doesn't belong in /etc/sysconfig.
Also, I can't see that consolidation adds any real value. FHS standardizes /etc; some config files are /etc/foo, some are /etc/foo/foo, some are /etc/X11/foo; /etc/default/foo consistently fits into the general mess!^Wpattern.
The various ways upstreams provide documentation documentation all refer to files by path, so it is easy enough ways to find the correct config file (after all, finding a file is not enough if you don't understand what it does, and the time to find a file is trivial compared to the time to meaningfully edit it). I can't see any real benefit from moving things around, especially when the cost is adding more permanent symlinks and making the filesystem structure even more complex.
Moved [https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/152 to Fedora Packaging Comittee].
Login to comment on this ticket.