| 1 |
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:02:53 -0700 Chris White <chriswhite@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Monday 11 September 2006 15:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
| > * Otherwise, try again with ``._cfg0001_name``, then |
| 5 |
| > ``._cfg0002_name`` and so on (base ten is used for the number part) |
| 6 |
| > until a usable filename is found. |
| 7 |
| |
| 8 |
| For what purpose are the older cfg[number]_name files kept around? I |
| 9 |
| ask because I would anticipate the default behavior for replacing |
| 10 |
| configuration files with their pending updates to be picking the |
| 11 |
| newest update. That said, the previous versions would not serve a |
| 12 |
| purpose, or is there something I don't see? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Existing tools ask the user which file they want to use when there's |
| 15 |
more than one. It's possible that this is more useful behaviour, |
| 16 |
especially if, say, someone is upgrading and downgrading the same |
| 17 |
package repeatedly for testing purposes. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The purpose of these specifications isn't to change behaviour, except |
| 20 |
for small things where obvious and clear bugs or deficiencies are found |
| 21 |
(which I don't think is the case here). Rather, they're to document and |
| 22 |
clarify what current behaviour should be considered reliable rather |
| 23 |
than merely a coincidence of how Portage happens to work. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 27 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
Archives