| 1 |
On Sunday 29 February 2004 22:13, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/29/04 Sami Näätänen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 29 February 2004 17:15, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 02/28/04 Jeremy Huddleston wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 02:55, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > I agree with Jason - a config file that hasn't been modified |
| 7 |
> > > > > shouldn't be config-protected. No information is lost when |
| 8 |
> > > > > the file is removed, and if a Gentoo user has edited the |
| 9 |
> > > > > file, it'll get picked up because of the change in timestamp |
| 10 |
> > > > > and md5sum. |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > It should be left. Consider this case: |
| 13 |
> > > > $ emerge packageA |
| 14 |
> > > > /etc/services is modified to contain a reference for packageA |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > > $ emerge packageB |
| 17 |
> > > > /etc/services is modified to contain a reference for packageB |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > Two packages owning the same file is a bug, no matter if the file |
| 20 |
> > > is CONFIG_PROTECTed or not. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > It is bug only if the packages doesn't block each other. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> ... owning the same file at the same time ... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That was just the thing I was looking for. It was just in the tips of my |
| 27 |
fingers, but just couldn't get it out. Maybe because I wrote with my |
| 28 |
toes or something. :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives