| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:54:35PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/09/2018 03:27 PM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 09/07/18 23:12, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 07/09/2018 02:34 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> I'd mostly argue any such change should only affect new systems |
| 6 |
> >>> |
| 7 |
> >> Yes, changing defaults for existing systems would be annoying. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> My recommendation is to have catalyst set the new defaults in the stage |
| 10 |
> >> tarballs. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> When sys-apps/portage changes its internal defaults, I'd like for the |
| 13 |
> >> upgrade process to call a tool that generates configuration files when |
| 14 |
> >> necessary to ensure that the existing paths remain constant. |
| 15 |
> > I think it should be possible for RelEng to make a start on catalyst |
| 16 |
> > updates - is there anything that would inhibit going ahead with this, |
| 17 |
> > potentially? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> No, nothing. Whatever catalyst puts it the default config will become |
| 20 |
> our new default. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I would still like to see notice about what the new defaults are and how |
| 23 |
to migrate current systems to them. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> Thanks, |
| 32 |
> Zac |
| 33 |
> |
Archives