Re: [BackupPC-users] Re: Different backup modules on each client

[Craig B. <cba...@us...>]

Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom writes:

> On 08/05 05:29 , Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > Personally, I agree with the Debian decision to house all configuration
> > under /etc, and would encourage you to use that as the default location
> > for all configuration -- including the config.pl file -- by default.
> 
> it's not so much a Debian-specific thing; but a Linux Filesystem Heirarchy
> Standard thing. It makes a world of sense to me, as an admin; because this
> way I can grab a tarball of just /etc, and know that I've got the config
> files for everything on the system.
> 
> as for a CGI configuration editor; how about making it edit/generate
> per-host configuration files by default? this way you can more easily
> delegate administrative authority over those machines to other users, while
> leaving the main config file untouched. 

Sure, the CGI editor will allow both the main config file and
the per-PC config settings to be edited.  Regular users will
only be able to edit a (configurable) subset of their PC's
settings.  I was just making an observation about which
destination location to use for writing the per-PC config
file.

> In fact; it might be nice to have the config.pl file; but also a
> local-config.pl file, which you can use to override the system-wide settings
> in config.pl. By doing that, the distribution's package tool can just
> clobber the old config.pl with a new one; but your local customizations will
> be untouched. painless and unattended upgrades are always a bonus. :)

I've thought about having several hierarchies of config files,
eg: per-PC, PC category (eg: linux or PC), and main.  Currently
there are just two: per-PC and main.  But this seems a little
complex and potentially confusing.

I'm not sure a local config file makes sense.  Currently the upgrade
scripts are smart about merging new config settings into the existing
main config file without touching the existing settings.

Craig