Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Package Manager Specification: configuration protection

[Harald van Dijk]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 07:39:35PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:51:09 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@g.o>
> wrote:
> | On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Comments both on the nature and the specifics of the specification
> | > would be welcomed. In particular, I'd like to know if people think
> | > we're mandating the appropriate degree of specificity and whether
> | > we're providing sufficient generality to avoid overly restricting
> | > innovation.
> |
> | I think this is overly restrictive, actually. It's a good idea to
> | specify which files and directories will be matched by CONFIG_PROTECT
> | and _MASK, since that's something ebuilds end up using, but it may be
> | better to leave the details on how they will be protected up to the
> | package manager (which can in turn make it configurable for the user).
> | For one example of what a package manager, if configured to do so,
> | should in my opinion be allowed to do: automatically remove unmodified
> | and abandoned configuration files on updates. (This is not the same as
> | setting CONFIG_PROTECT=-*.) For another, a package manager, if
> | configured to do so, should in my opinion be allowed to store the
> | config files on a (possibly local) cvs/svn server in addition to the
> | real filesystem, avoiding ._cfg* files altogether. Specifying how
> | they will be protected prevents things like this.
>
> Hm, the specification doesn't preclude additional functionality. It
> just describes how things should work when normal configuration
> protection is in action.

Sure, the specification does not prohibit package managers from having
behaviour that can be configured to not match what is specified, but
that isn't the point. The point is that if configured as such, it isn't
a Gentoo package manager anymore.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list