Re: [HTCondor-users] config.d vs condor_config.local

[Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/07/2014 01:19 PM, Philip Papadopoulos wrote:
> Don't  know if it is stable, but I would move to just using a  config.d
> configuration. Seems like a more robust way to approach this.

Well, that's exactly the point: if, like the dump suggests,
condor_config.local is read after config.d

>> Contributing configuration file(s):
>> #       /etc/condor/condor_config
>> #       /etc/condor/config.d/10_config.wrk
>> #       /etc/condor/config.d/20_config.cron
>> #       /etc/condor/condor_config.local

then whatever junk may have come with the last yum up'd
condor_config.local will override your robust and modular local
config.d. Or you have to maintain all three sets of config files:
global, local and config.d -- I fail to see an improvement there.

-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature