Jobs under /lib instead of /etc?

[Michael T]

Hello Garrett (and Scott),

> This seems like a replay of a previous email... The suggestion you're
> making makes absolutely no sense from a traditional Unix layout
Indeed, I first tried to send the mail without subscribing, and after it
failed to appear for a few days I subscribed and resent it.  By that time
though, I could no longer cancel the first mail, which has just gone
through - sorry.

I take your point about the traditional Unix layout, although after my
discussion with Scott, the question is no longer so relevant anyway...

However, I do have another point I would like to put to Scott, on the
subject of upstart scripts being configuration files.  From Scott's last
e-mail:

>> I would personally expect them to be created and configured by package
>> maintainers in most cases though and not modified further in most cases
>> once they land on the package user's system.
>>
> Initially this is true, however remember that Upstart job configuration
> files are not shell scripts.  They're intended to be much more readable,
> and editable: declaring what is run, not describing how to run it.
On the whole I can go along with that, except that when I check the upstart
scripts on my system, 17 out of 34 *do* actually contain shell script.
This is the sort of thing that rather upsets me in /etc, as that can become
a configuration nightmare when people start to fiddle.  It does seem to me
that it would be nicer if this were banned from the scripts, so that the
people who write this stuff had to put it in a script file somewhere outside
of /etc.

I promise I won't bother you more with this stuff without you really ask
for a response :)

Regards,

Michael

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_1:092010