| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Comments both on the nature and the specifics of the specification |
| 3 |
> would be welcomed. In particular, I'd like to know if people think |
| 4 |
> we're mandating the appropriate degree of specificity and whether we're |
| 5 |
> providing sufficient generality to avoid overly restricting innovation. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I think this is overly restrictive, actually. It's a good idea to |
| 8 |
specify which files and directories will be matched by CONFIG_PROTECT |
| 9 |
and _MASK, since that's something ebuilds end up using, but it may be |
| 10 |
better to leave the details on how they will be protected up to the |
| 11 |
package manager (which can in turn make it configurable for the user). |
| 12 |
For one example of what a package manager, if configured to do so, |
| 13 |
should in my opinion be allowed to do: automatically remove unmodified |
| 14 |
and abandoned configuration files on updates. (This is not the same as |
| 15 |
setting CONFIG_PROTECT=-*.) For another, a package manager, if |
| 16 |
configured to do so, should in my opinion be allowed to store the config |
| 17 |
files on a (possibly local) cvs/svn server in addition to the real |
| 18 |
filesystem, avoiding ._cfg* files altogether. Specifying how they will |
| 19 |
be protected prevents things like this. |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives