| 1 |
On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 |
> Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files |
| 3 |
> when making quickpkg files? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be |
| 6 |
> a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone |
| 7 |
> stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might |
| 8 |
> be a good reason not to. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary |
| 11 |
> packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to |
| 12 |
> include everything I could. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type |
| 15 |
> user? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works. |
| 19 |
emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the |
| 20 |
thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority? |
| 21 |
You can always rename them to <name>.bak if you think they might get nuked. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory |
| 24 |
owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the |
| 25 |
tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals.... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives