| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 12:48:08PM -0500, Yannick Koehler wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Guys, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> not sure for anyone else but is init.d really need to be protected? |
| 6 |
> I mean does someone really change files in that directory (other than |
| 7 |
> adding or removing)? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That dir should always get merged. It would also get really nice of |
| 10 |
> the portage could detect that no changes has been made to the file since |
| 11 |
> its installation and therefore merge it without any issues. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Like if the protected config file's time were saved in a temp files |
| 14 |
> that portage would look into before merging to see if the date has or not |
| 15 |
> change since the last install. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
/etc/init.d/ should be protected, if nor no other reason than because it's better |
| 18 |
to err on the side of caution. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I currently have four modified init.d/ scripts, plus three that either I or a |
| 21 |
compiled-from-source program created. If init.d were not protected, and an update |
| 22 |
or emerge replaced one of those scripts without my knowledge, it could seriously |
| 23 |
hose up parts of the system. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Nope. The current system works fine. At most, someone should be able to easily |
| 26 |
write a script to automatically copy init.d/ scripts into place. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Matt Beland |
| 30 |
matt@××××××××××××××.org |
| 31 |
http://www.rearviewmirror.org |
Archives