1 |
On 16-05-2012 11:48:20 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
2 |
> El mié, 16-05-2012 a las 11:42 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió: |
3 |
> > On 16-05-2012 12:36:03 +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: |
4 |
> > > On 2012-05-16 12:13 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
5 |
> > > >>> make.conf(5) man page: |
6 |
> > > >>> This causes the CONFIG_PROTECT behavior to be skipped for files that |
7 |
> > > >>> have not been modified since they were installed. |
8 |
> > > > |
9 |
> > > > +1 very good idea |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > Hmm, does that mean that when a default changes in (or some new setting |
12 |
> > > is added to) an app config file, I'll get no prompt and no warning |
13 |
> > > assuming I go with the default settings in the app? That presumes that |
14 |
> > > the new default or the new setting does not break my setup. That is a |
15 |
> > > big assumption. |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> > I'd think so, yes |
18 |
> |
19 |
> But similar assumption applies to current behavior: if a user forgets to |
20 |
> run dispatch-conf after updating and machine is rebooted (by error, due |
21 |
> some power failure, due other users rebooting it...), they will probably |
22 |
> get failures when booting and, for example, some init.d scripts file to |
23 |
> start due obsolete conf.d files being preserved by default. |
24 |
|
25 |
True, but we currently have a message for this, telling you to update |
26 |
your config files, while I guess there is no (persistent) message that |
27 |
some of your config files were overwritten, with which unknown |
28 |
differences (if any) triggering different behaviour. |
29 |
IOW it is impossible to review changes with this setting. |
30 |
|
31 |
Maybe we can just keep backups of the older conf-files if they are |
32 |
different (besides comments), renamed like myapp.conf-myapp-1.0-r4 and |
33 |
have a tool (or reuse a tool) to review and/or cleanup this every once |
34 |
in a while? |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Fabian Groffen |
38 |
Gentoo on a different level |