Web lists-archives.com

Can somebody explain the benefits of .d directories

Hi everyone,

I am a tech writer, as part of my job I also have to maintain a number of servers, various UNIX systems. Yes, I am a dev as well ....

I have used Debian since 2001 and I do not want to be understood as some UNIX nerd or fanatic.

I have an honest question which is dead-simple: Why do we have ".d" directories, such as "sources.d" or "grub.d", note that with grub, the defaults are in another directory tree - this is simply beyond insane. (Sorry to quote Linus)

I am sure this question has been asked before (I have googled for many years and have not found an acceptable answer, the downside being having to parse several files vs a single file) and I am more than happy to accept "change", except that in this case it needlessly increases my workload. With ancient UNIX systems, a sed oneliner is enough, with Linux, I have to use "grep -r" or use "find" in combination with "sed". I seriously think this is nonsense, there is no "logical" reason for doing this, afaict. Have I missed something ? I have asked the question on unix.stackexchange.com and got silly answers trying to defend the "it is so much easier to parse x files in a directory than a single file" stance (you gotta be kidding!).

I would really appreciate answers on this, I never had the nerve to ask this, because you all write great software !!!! And yes, I donate ...

I have waited many years before reporting this because I lacked confidence, but seriously ...I think this is a bug and it needs to be fixed. ".d" is braindead, does not add any functionality that cannot be replicated with the "Enter" key on a keyboard and, in the worst case, a line starting with # followed by some comment. 

Some admins where I work are happy to rename the files in the ".d" directory to their liking ...a silly and futile attempt to stop me from pruning the repos the servers use ...hmmmm