List Archive: gentoo-web-user
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
> => added files are keeped, but modified ones are simply overwritten.
Stuart (the original webapp-config author) is currently too busy to
join the discussion. But I talked briefly with him and he confirmed
that we are using this type of behavior since portage does behave in
the same way.
> I think that droping user modifications to a webapp is quite grave. There is
> some reasons to modifify a webapp :
> - bug fixes
> - add some features, often about security, like adding verification code for
> registrations forms...
> - disabling some features, to prevent clients to use them
> - ....
> And if you want to upgrade to the latest version of this webapp, you will lose
> all these changes!
> I'm agree to the goal for after a webapp-config -U, your webapp is directly
> But, I prefer waiting 3 minutes by doing etc-update and merging changes with
> the new version,
> than losing all my changes, temporaly block access to clients for security
> reason, and redo all my changes if I found time and motivation to do my work
> a second time....
> I mean, erasing user modification would put the webapp in a 'non-functionnal'
> state, and for a long time.... that's not the goal of a webapp installation
> So why not use the CONFIG_PROTECT from make.conf to auto-protect server-owned
Yes, this is a reasonable solution to the problem. Currently we don't
take the CONFIG_PROTECT variable into account. It wouldn't be too hard
to do so. So one of the next versions will allow you to add your
server dir in CONFIG_PROTECT and that will prevent webapp-config from
overwriting anything in there.
Gunnar Wrobel Gentoo Developer
IRC: #gentoo-web at freenode.org