| 1 |
On Thursday 02 June 2005 04:47, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> Grant Goodyear wrote: [Wed Jun 01 2005, 02:38:51PM CDT] |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Dear all, |
| 5 |
> > Is dispatch-conf still "barely-maintained", meaning that nobody is |
| 6 |
> > really all that familiar with the code? Agriffis has suggested that we |
| 7 |
> > split dispatch-conf out of portage and either put it into gentoolkit or |
| 8 |
> > make it its own package, and see if we can get some help |
| 9 |
> > with maintaining it. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Brian tells me that the symlink bug is fixed in ~arch, and that he |
| 12 |
> doesn't object to breaking it out of portage. Any other thoughts? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's not fixed as far as I know and I've been the one fixing bugs with |
| 15 |
dispatch-conf and I just came across that bug the other day. To confirm we're |
| 16 |
talking about the same thing: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
myfile (regular file) |
| 19 |
._cfg0000_myfile (symlink to otherfile) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
After running dispatch-conf and choosing to "use new", myfile will be a |
| 22 |
regular file holding the same contents as otherfile. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As for splitting it out, I'd say either both or neither. As it stands now, |
| 25 |
etc-update has more bugs (mostly usability) filed against it than |
| 26 |
dispatch-conf does. It'd be nice to have dispatch-conf become the |
| 27 |
recommended. This could still happen if they were to be split out though. |
| 28 |
We'd just need a virtual/cfg-updater or something that they both provide and |
| 29 |
just make portage depend on it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives