Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extension of etc-update
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:51:53
Message-Id: 20040811.IRf.44677300@groupware.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: extension of etc-update by Joerg Hoh
1 Joerg Hoh (joerg@××××××.org) wrote:
2 >
3 > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 01:52:30PM +0200, Radoslaw Stachowiak wrote:
4 > >
5 > > it doesnt in proper way, because dispatch-conf does not store md5sums,
6 > > but uses /var/db/pkg data for its comparision. But using it (db) after
7 > > installation results in md5sum lost (only md5 sums of NEW version of
8 > > files are stored).
9 > >
10 > > So there are two ways to do it:
11 > > 1. store sums regardless of portage, and compare it after installation.
12 > > 2. maybe, instead of md5sum, simple comparision if mtime < ctime than
13 > > update is allowed would be fine?
14 > >
15 > > please comment about 2) because it would be trivial to implement it in
16 > > dispatch-conf.
17 >
18 > ctime vs mtime would be acceptable; if it is combined with the
19 > trivial-merge-approach, it's probably enough for most of the mentioned
20 > issues.
21
22 This still appears to have this problem, unless I missed it: What if the
23 default is exactly what a user wants in one version, then the default changes
24 in the next version? You assume an unmodified config file means the user
25 doesn't care what's in it.
26
27 But in this scenario, the file's MD5 would be unchanged from the initial
28 snapshot because the file is distributed as the user desires -- yet an update
29 wrongly overwrites this with a change that causes broken or unwanted results.
30
31 There should be at least an option to NOT do the MD5 checking you propose.
32
33 Thanks,
34 Donnie
35
36 --
37 Donnie Berkholz
38 Gentoo Linux
39
40
41
42 --
43 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list