| 1 |
OK, so I'm a little lazy. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
It might not be a bad idea to be able to type 'emerge --newconfigs' to |
| 4 |
make things a little more elegant. Either that or include a script with |
| 5 |
portage (see attachment). It may seem trivial for something so simple, |
| 6 |
but I think hiding implementation details is just good practice. If, for |
| 7 |
some reason (e.g. divine intervention), the naming of the config files |
| 8 |
changed, users wouldn't be affected. They could still type 'emerge |
| 9 |
--newconfigs' and do so with a smile. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Zach. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Mikael Hallendal wrote: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> lör 2001-12-08 klockan 04.00 skrev Zach Forrest: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>>Is there any particular reason for new config files to be hidden? I |
| 19 |
>>would personally prefer dropping the period so the format would be |
| 20 |
>>'_cfg????_*'. That way they're out in the open and easy to deal with. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> eek, :) I wouldn't want my /etc to be full of _cfg???_*, much better |
| 24 |
> imho with the current one. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> When merging it tells you how many config-files that needs update then |
| 27 |
> you just have to do: |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> cd /etc |
| 30 |
> find . -name "._cfg*" |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> and then deal with them |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Regards, |
| 35 |
> Mikael Hallendal |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
Archives