| 1 |
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:19:40 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| > Protected Locations |
| 4 |
| > =================== |
| 5 |
| > |
| 6 |
| > Protected locations are determined by the ``CONFIG_PROTECT`` |
| 7 |
| > environment variable, which is defined in the profiles and which |
| 8 |
| > may be augmented or overridden by the current environment and user |
| 9 |
| > configuration files. This variable contains a space separated list |
| 10 |
| > of values which are matched against the beginning of a full file |
| 11 |
| > path and name of files to be installed. |
| 12 |
| |
| 13 |
| "which are matched against the beginning of a full file path" would |
| 14 |
| mean that e.g. CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc/foo" would protect the following: |
| 15 |
| |
| 16 |
| /etc/foobar/doh |
| 17 |
| /etc/foo |
| 18 |
| /etc/foobaz |
| 19 |
| |
| 20 |
| .. or did I misunderstand something here? I don't know whether that is |
| 21 |
| the current behaviour of portage, but IMO it certainly shouldn't be. |
| 22 |
| It should rather be |
| 23 |
| |
| 24 |
| /etc/foo (file) |
| 25 |
| or, if /etc/foo is a dir: |
| 26 |
| /etc/foo/* |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Mm. I had a play with this. I'd like someone else to do independent |
| 29 |
tests, because I'm seeing something weird here. But it looks like |
| 30 |
Portage's current behaviour is: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
with CONFIG_PROTECT="/foo": |
| 33 |
* if /foo is a file, it's not protected |
| 34 |
* if /foo is a directory, its contents (including subdirectories) are |
| 35 |
protected |
| 36 |
* /foofoo (file) is not protected |
| 37 |
* /foobar/baz is not protected |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
and weirdly, with CONFIG_PROTECT="/foo/" |
| 40 |
* if /foo/ is a directory, its contents are protected during unmerge |
| 41 |
but not during merge |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
All of this is rather weird, and doesn't match up to what I've been |
| 44 |
told by Portage people that Portage is supposed to do... |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 48 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
Archives