| 1 |
Michał Górny posted on Wed, 24 Jan 2018 20:58:54 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> W dniu śro, 24.01.2018 o godzinie 12∶54 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner |
| 4 |
> napisał: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I think its a bit trickier to control the hook's behavior. For |
| 7 |
>> instance: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> 1) I install portage[rsync-verify]. This installs the hook. |
| 10 |
>> 2) I end up not liking the hook, I install portage[-rsync-verify] |
| 11 |
>> 3) Does the hook get config-protected here? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Keeping config-protected files applies only if the file were modified. |
| 14 |
> In this case it just gets unmerged. I've just verified that. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That's controlled by FEATURES=config-protect-if-modified . Granted, |
| 17 |
that's enabled by default, but config-protecting unmodified files as well |
| 18 |
is definitely a user option that should be considered, even if that |
| 19 |
consideration is simply "users disabling the default get to keep the |
| 20 |
pieces". |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Meanwhile, if it's "you keep the pieces if you've messed with the |
| 23 |
default", that should at least be mentioned in the news item[1], so users |
| 24 |
can consider whether the risk is worth it if they've had that feature |
| 25 |
specifically disabled previously. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
--- |
| 28 |
[1] New item mention: or the more detailed instructions the news item |
| 29 |
points to if they get too long to be in the news item itself. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives