| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:29:24AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> It's not fixed as far as I know and I've been the one fixing bugs with |
| 3 |
> dispatch-conf and I just came across that bug the other day. To confirm we're |
| 4 |
> talking about the same thing: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> myfile (regular file) |
| 7 |
> ._cfg0000_myfile (symlink to otherfile) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> After running dispatch-conf and choosing to "use new", myfile will be a |
| 10 |
> regular file holding the same contents as otherfile. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> As for splitting it out, I'd say either both or neither. As it stands now, |
| 13 |
> etc-update has more bugs (mostly usability) filed against it than |
| 14 |
> dispatch-conf does. It'd be nice to have dispatch-conf become the |
| 15 |
> recommended. This could still happen if they were to be split out though. |
| 16 |
> We'd just need a virtual/cfg-updater or something that they both provide and |
| 17 |
> just make portage depend on it. |
| 18 |
Hmm. I was just about to argue that we need at least one bundled with |
| 19 |
portage, but the thing is, we don't really. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
virtual seems like slight overkill, but is the proper route... |
| 22 |
~brian |
Archives