[Bug libc/20138] /etc should be configurable by --sysconfdir

[Bug libc/20138] /etc should be configurable by --sysconfdir

[sam at gentoo dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20138

Sam James <sam at gentoo dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sam at gentoo dot org

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug libc/20138] /etc should be configurable by --sysconfdir

[chewi at gentoo dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20138

James Le Cuirot <chewi at gentoo dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |chewi at gentoo dot org

--- Comment #1 from James Le Cuirot <chewi at gentoo dot org> ---
Hi Benda. I noticed we were doing this in Gentoo when I found that getent was
returning user/group entries from the prefix, rather than from /etc. I really
don't think that makes sense, at least for passwd, group, and shadow. Some of
the other files like services and resolv.conf are debatable.

For users and groups, the location of their names and other properties are
determined by the libc in use, not by where the file/directory you're
inspecting is. It would be really weird for "/path/to/prefix/bin/ls -l /home"
to return completely different ownership information to "/bin/ls -l /home".

In Gentoo's case, prefix is typically managed by a single user, so the
ownership of files within the prefix isn't that interesting. We also stub out
the user/group management functions in the eclasses under Prefix so these files
generally don't get populated anyway.

services is a typically static file and Gentoo Prefix is normally deployed on
older systems, so it may make sense to use the newer prefixed version in this
case.

I'm on the fence with resolv.conf. Having to configure DNS in two places is
strange, but if you don't have root access and you don't like the DNS
configuration you've been given, this gives you the power to change it.

Of course, you can always create a symlink, although the security around some
of these files may prevent that from working. I think we should draw a line at
passwd, group, and shadow in any case. What do you think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.