| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > For everyone's information -- The conf.d/net removal on upgrade is a |
| 5 |
> > packaging issue, which could not have been tested prior to |
| 6 |
> > openrc-0.12.ebuild hitting the tree. There are details in |
| 7 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481336 if anyone's interested |
| 8 |
> > in why it's happening. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I've fixed the 0.12.ebuild in the tree now. It's a hack but it seems |
| 11 |
> > to be the best possible solution. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Thanks for the update. From the other report it seems unlikely that |
| 14 |
> calling for volunteers would have turned up much. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That's just the nature of ~arch - if you get an openrc update you're |
| 17 |
> among the first. Gentoo users should know what they're doing |
| 18 |
> regardless, and ~arch users doubly-so. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Also, it really isn't Gentoo-specific, but putting /etc in a git repo |
| 21 |
> is a really good practice, and I'm wondering if it should go in the |
| 22 |
> handbook as a result. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Rich |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
sys-apps/etckeeper is what you want. Works great. It even has portage |
| 28 |
integration. Though I'd recommend going with the ~arch version instead of |
| 29 |
stable for that portion. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Doug Goldstein |
Archives