| 1 |
On Sun, 2 May 2004 19:15:13 +0100 |
| 2 |
Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Urgh ;-) Wouldn't it be better all round to just have Portage |
| 5 |
> handle this properly - where it has access to the CONTENTS file |
| 6 |
> - rather than end up with a second repository of installation |
| 7 |
> information? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If you only consider the problem of automatically updating |
| 10 |
vanilla config files, then it is clear that the dispatch-conf |
| 11 |
way is a hack whereas the "change portage" approach would be |
| 12 |
clean, and what Marius has proposed perfectly makes sense. That |
| 13 |
said, dispatch-conf does not make its backups just for that |
| 14 |
feature. The point is that using this tool (plus archive-conf), an |
| 15 |
admin can keep a full log of all its configuration files, go back |
| 16 |
to any old vanilla or custom version if something goes wrong, |
| 17 |
etc. This RCS repository is imho a major feature by itself, |
| 18 |
whereas the time you gain compared to etc-update when some new |
| 19 |
vanilla versions are installed is only a nice side effect. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If you change portage and etc-update as Marius suggested, then |
| 22 |
something nice would be to add an option to specify a backup |
| 23 |
command to call each time it changes a file. This way, old |
| 24 |
dispatch-conf users like me could continue to maintain there |
| 25 |
config repository, for instance using archive-conf. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
TGL. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives