| 1 |
On Wednesday 17 September 2003 17:02, Stroller wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17 Sep 2003, at 1:24 pm, Gwendolyn van der Linden wrote: |
| 3 |
> > brett holcomb [mailto:brettholcomb@×××××××.net] wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your |
| 5 |
> >> system will break. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
No it doesn't break, it just breaks if you foolishly hit "just overwrite all |
| 8 |
files with the new version". |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > Exactly. I would vote for keeping /etc/fstab.example in portage, and |
| 11 |
> > making the copying/editing part of the installation procedure (cp |
| 12 |
> > /etc/fstab.example /etc/fstab; nano -w /etc/fstab). |
| 13 |
> I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if this was changed, were you to file |
| 14 |
> it as a bug. I'm cross posting to gentoo-dev to see what they think. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I wouldn't be if it wouldn't. I would really like this to be consistent in |
| 17 |
gentoo. Syslog-ng has a syslog-ng.sample file, postfix has many sample files, |
| 18 |
many other packages don't and you got to use etc-update. Well sometimes I |
| 19 |
really welcome etc-update and config file merging and on other occasions it |
| 20 |
just sucks and is a pain in the ass. Difficult decision I'd say. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Alex |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives