Greetings.
It's come up in the review of a package I have submitted that there is no guideline for /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500437
My understanding is that these are not really config files. End users should not be editing them. Many of the packages that have files in there do not mark them as config. Some packages do. I suppose they could be edited by end users, but I wouldn't think it would be very common or desired.
Should we have a guideline for them (or add to an existing one)?
Should the be marked config or not?
Should they not be under /etc/ at all?
Thoughts?
kevin
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
It's come up in the review of a package I have submitted that there is no guideline for /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500437
My understanding is that these are not really config files. End users should not be editing them. Many of the packages that have files in there do not mark them as config. Some packages do. I suppose they could be edited by end users, but I wouldn't think it would be very common or desired.
Should we have a guideline for them (or add to an existing one)?
Should the be marked config or not?
Should they not be under /etc/ at all?
Thoughts?
I don't know enough about them to say. At first glance, I'm not certain whether they're configuration or not. They seem to define who is allowed to issue certain requests on the bus. If these are just defaults overridable elsewhere, then they are not config. If the administrator is meant to change these files to change the system defaults then they are. Maybe mclasen or davidz can tell us?
-Toshio
On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:07:47 -0700 Toshio Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know enough about them to say. At first glance, I'm not certain whether they're configuration or not. They seem to define who is allowed to issue certain requests on the bus. If these are just defaults overridable elsewhere, then they are not config. If the administrator is meant to change these files to change the system defaults then they are. Maybe mclasen or davidz can tell us?
Are they on this list?
From my review bug:
--- Comment #7 from Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com 2009-05-13 07:50:06 EDT --- dbus ".conf" files aren't config files. The only thing you'll manage to do is break the setup. Don't mark those as config files.
-Toshio
kevin
On 05/13/2009 02:29 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
It's come up in the review of a package I have submitted that there is no guideline for /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500437
My understanding is that these are not really config files. End users should not be editing them. Many of the packages that have files in there do not mark them as config. Some packages do. I suppose they could be edited by end users, but I wouldn't think it would be very common or desired.
Should we have a guideline for them (or add to an existing one)?
Should the be marked config or not?
Should they not be under /etc/ at all?
These look to me more like resource XML files than actual configuration files. As such, they are probably more suited for /usr/share/dbus-1/ (which already contains a bunch of other xml files).
I would not block a review on this though, /etc contains a lot of "pseudo" configuration files like this (GConf schemas for example). From an upstream project perspective, they are configuration files, but from a Fedora desktop user, they are not meant to be modified...
-denis
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 09:09 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
On 05/13/2009 02:29 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
It's come up in the review of a package I have submitted that there is no guideline for /etc/dbus-1/system.d/ files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500437
My understanding is that these are not really config files. End users should not be editing them. Many of the packages that have files in there do not mark them as config. Some packages do. I suppose they could be edited by end users, but I wouldn't think it would be very common or desired.
Should we have a guideline for them (or add to an existing one)?
Should the be marked config or not?
Should they not be under /etc/ at all?
These look to me more like resource XML files than actual configuration files. As such, they are probably more suited for /usr/share/dbus-1/ (which already contains a bunch of other xml files).
That seems like a very weak argument ("the look similar to other files in that other location") to make a change that will cause a bunch of needless packaging churn...
I would not block a review on this though, /etc contains a lot of "pseudo" configuration files like this (GConf schemas for example). From an upstream project perspective, they are configuration files, but from a Fedora desktop user, they are not meant to be modified...
Exactly. This is a big problem with the whole '/etc is for config' stanza: whats configuration from the dbus daemons perspective is not necessarily configuration from the distro or user perspective.
The only thing users can achieve by 'configuring things in /etc/dbus-1/system are
a) Break their system by preventing the sending of messages that are needed for a working system
b) Opening security holes by allowing the sending of messages that the shipped dbus policy was meant to prevent
Matthias
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Denis Leroy -
Kevin Fenzi -
Matthias Clasen -
Toshio Kuratomi