On 2013-02-18 12:36, antttikutoja wrote:
> Carlos. Yes, what I am seeing is reflective of the behaviours of yast.
> It works the way it works but I now know that, particularly if I make
> changes in the background, what yast tells me about my box’s
> configuration is not necessarily the case.
> In a sysadmin tool, I would consider that a bug.
> Why can’t yast show me how my system is really configured rather than
> what it last knew about? After all, it knows what the underlying config
> files are so why not use them as its repository? Probably some of its
> modules do but clearly some do not.
> During the 5.x etc series, one edited, among other things, a file in
> etc called rc.conf. Basically, it defined your system and was central to
> the configuration. After any change to rc.conf though, one had to run
> the SuSEconfig script in order to propogate changes into the system as a
Correct. Now it is not a single file, but a bunch of files under
“/etc/sysconfig/*”. You write there, run SuSEconfig, and they are
applied to the real config files. This goes in one direction: the “real”
configuration files are not read, they are only written to.
That’s the reason of what you describe.
There is a bunch of files under “/var/adm/SuSEconfig/md5” that is used
by SuSEconfig to detect changes to the real config files. If a change is
detected, it aborts and does not touch the real file again for life.
YaST, in general, does not parse those real config files.
All that said, SuSEconfig is being deprecated, it does less and less
these days. What you see can also be a result of this. Some devs propose
that the entire “/etc/sysconfig/*” structure be removed. I do not know
how they then intend YaST to work, because parsing all the real config
files of all the modules that YaST configs is a LOT of work and will
produce bugs for years to come. It is a death sentence for YaST.
> This is personal but one of the reasons why I have found so many MS
> “admins” incapable of really sorting out problems is that all they are
> taught is how to operate their various gui tools. Very few seem to know
> exactly from where and how the box is really configured. I’d rue the day
> is SuSE became like that. I’ve always liked the way it introduced the
> gui without screwing the underlying configuration architecture.
And if they GUI fails, they only can reinstall again. I know. Have you
tried to install an Exchange server with AD? /That/ is a nightmare.
Specially for people like me used to Linux.
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 12.1 x86_64 “Asparagus” at Telcontar)