| 1 |
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:51:29 -0800 |
| 2 |
Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> And any other "new" file in /etc you also want a USE flag |
| 5 |
> introduced for? Sounds real scalable. Or is this just an |
| 6 |
> exception from the rule? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Sure it's an exception. I make the difference beetween: |
| 9 |
- usual /etc/ files: when they are new, they don't get used before |
| 10 |
you start the service or whatever they are owned by. People know |
| 11 |
that they should configure things before using them, and that's no |
| 12 |
issue. And when they are not new, the changes get CONFIG_PROTECTed, |
| 13 |
so there is no issue |
| 14 |
- files in some /etc/something.d/: no issue when not new neither, |
| 15 |
sure. But when they are new, they affect the existing configuration |
| 16 |
of an already in use service with zero protection. It's exactly |
| 17 |
like if a pkg_postinst function was doing some "cat new_chunk >> |
| 18 |
/etc/something", which i sure you agree would be bad. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Another example of such issues is when i installed laptop-mode |
| 21 |
tools for the first time: it messed my acpid configuration, because |
| 22 |
it was adding in /etc/acpi/{events,actions}.d some handlers for |
| 23 |
things i had already configured differently in my own scripts. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That's that kind of situation i would like to avoid when there are |
| 26 |
simple ways to do it, and not any file installation to /etc. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
TGL |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives