Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] dispatch-conf

[Paul Varner]

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 08:29 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 02 June 2005 04:47, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Grant Goodyear wrote: [Wed Jun 01 2005, 02:38:51PM CDT]
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >   Is dispatch-conf still "barely-maintained", meaning that nobody is
> > > really all that familiar with the code?  Agriffis has suggested that we
> > > split dispatch-conf out of portage and either put it into gentoolkit or
> > > make it its own package, and see if we can get some help
> > > with maintaining it.
> >
> > Brian tells me that the symlink bug is fixed in ~arch, and that he
> > doesn't object to breaking it out of portage.  Any other thoughts?
>
> It's not fixed as far as I know and I've been the one fixing bugs with
> dispatch-conf and I just came across that bug the other day. To confirm we're
> talking about the same thing:
>
> myfile             (regular file)
> ._cfg0000_myfile   (symlink to otherfile)
>
> After running dispatch-conf and choosing to "use new", myfile will be a
> regular file holding the same contents as otherfile.
>
> As for splitting it out, I'd say either both or neither. As it stands now,
> etc-update has more bugs (mostly usability) filed against it than
> dispatch-conf does. It'd be nice to have dispatch-conf become the
> recommended. This could still happen if they were to be split out though.
> We'd just need a virtual/cfg-updater or something that they both provide and
> just make portage depend on it.

Jason,

That actually sounds like a good plan to me. This allow for more time
for the portage devs to develop portage and the wanna-be portage devs
like myself can work on the supporting tools.  Additionally this allows
the various config file update utilities to live or die on their own
merits.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list