[ovirt-devel] Moving configuration files to separate directory

[Martin Polednik]

Hey devels,

last week, I've been working on patch series that moves most of
configuration and "static" files away from our source code to a dir
called "static"[1]. (based on the previous' week VDSM weekly)

Current version has static dir's layout as flat - keeping all files in
the directory with few exceptions (mom.d and systemd). The downside of
the approach is that we still have to rename some of the files in
makefile due to possibility of name clashes if we had similarly named
files (50_vdsm from sudoers and 50_vdsm anything else).

There is another possibility - hierarchy within the folder. Instead of 
current structure -

static
├── Makefile.am
├── limits.conf
├── logger.conf.in
├── mom.conf.in
├── mom.d
│   ├── 00-defines.policy
│   ├── 01-parameters.policy
│   ├── 02-balloon.policy
│   ├── 03-ksm.policy
│   ├── 04-cputune.policy
│   ├── 05-iotune.policy
│   └── Makefile.am
├── sudoers.vdsm.in
├── svdsm.logger.conf.in
├── systemd
│   ├── Makefile.am
│   ├── mom-vdsm.service.in
│   ├── supervdsmd.service.in
│   ├── vdsm-network.service.in
│   └── vdsmd.service.in
├── vdsm-bonding-modprobe.conf
├── vdsm-logrotate.conf
├── vdsm-modules-load.d.conf
├── vdsm-sysctl.conf
└── vdsm.rwtab.in

we could structure the directory to a corresponding subfolders over
the system:

etc
├── modprobe.d
│   └── vdsm-bonding-modprobe.conf
├── modules-load.d
│   └── vdsm.conf
├── rwtab.d
│   └── vdsm
├── security
│   └── limits.d
│       └── 99-vdsm.conf
├── sudoers.d
│   ├── 50_vdsm
├── sysctl.d
│   └── vdsm.conf
└── vdsm
    ├── logger.conf
    ├── logrotate
    │   └── vdsm
    ├── mom.conf
    ├── mom.d
    │   ├── 00-defines.policy
    │   ├── 01-parameters.policy
    │   ├── 02-balloon.policy
    │   ├── 03-ksm.policy
    │   ├── 04-cputune.policy
    │   └── 05-iotune.policy
    ├── svdsm.logger.conf
    ├── vdsm.conf
    └── vdsm.conf.d

There is little downside to the second approach, that is more code is
added to VDSM in a sense that more makefiles will have to exist. On
the other hand, we can drop all the renaming and have the files named
as they would be named on their destination after install.
Opinions?

[1]https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:static-assets