1 |
I thought I knew how configuration files in /etc were updated by portage |
2 |
until I updated alsa-utils this evening on two computers. Both had 1.0.8 |
3 |
installed, and I updated both to 1.0.9a with: |
4 |
|
5 |
emerge -uDpv alsa-utils |
6 |
|
7 |
On the first one, both /etc/init.d/alsasound and /etc/conf.d/alsasound |
8 |
were updated, so I was asked to run etc-update, I accepted the update, |
9 |
and that was it. |
10 |
|
11 |
On the second computer, no update to these files was proposed. While |
12 |
merging, portage just seemed to assume they were already fine: |
13 |
|
14 |
--- /etc/ |
15 |
--- /etc/conf.d/ |
16 |
>>> /etc/conf.d/alsasound |
17 |
--- /etc/modules.d/ |
18 |
>>> /etc/modules.d/alsa |
19 |
--- /etc/init.d/ |
20 |
>>> /etc/init.d/alsasound |
21 |
|
22 |
The strange thing is, both files started identical on both computers. |
23 |
This means that I had lost an update on the second computer, as both |
24 |
files still had the old content. |
25 |
|
26 |
Now, I had already noticed that when a package was updated that made |
27 |
changes to files in /etc, and the changes were merged with etc-update, |
28 |
and then the same package was re-emerged, then no updates to the file |
29 |
were done anymore. I had assumed that portage somehow kept track of |
30 |
etc-update runs. But the situation above doesn't seem to fall in this |
31 |
category, as there was definitely an update to the files. |
32 |
|
33 |
So my questions: |
34 |
|
35 |
- What are the rules that portage uses to decide if an update to |
36 |
configuration files in /etc should be proposed to the user (by merging |
37 |
the file as ._cfg0000_*) or just dropped? |
38 |
|
39 |
- How do I make sure that I don't miss an update to configuration |
40 |
files, like was the case above? |
41 |
|
42 |
Thank you. |
43 |
-- Remy |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
Remove underscore and suffix in reply address for a timely response. |
47 |
|
48 |
-- |
49 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |