Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> writes: > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 11:53:32AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: >> How can that be a bug in etcupdate? All etcupdate tries to do is match >> /etc to what an /etc would look like on a virgin system. > > The question is: what do we define as a virgin system? The contents > of etc.tgz only have parts of that, our default installation creates > a few more files "on the fly" and touches some of the existing ones. > I consider that part of a default install. I'd argue that if (on a given arch) there are changes essentially always made by the install, that's a bug, and those changes should instead be in the etc set. I consider network customization, accounts, that are per-machine decisions to be separate. > I bet etcupdate does not delete /etc/resolv.conf for example, but this > is kindof a provocative stretch. It's a fair comment, actually, and etc management systems should not remove files they did not install. (etcmanage also behaves this way.) > What I meant is: some changes to /etc/ttys are special and need special > treatement by etcupdate - on/off, speed changes for serial devices, maybe > more should never be merged. Generally, etc management systems should apply changes to the etc.tgz files to the real etc but should not overwrite any local changes. etcupdate appears to be too aggressive. etcmanage errs on the other side, and essentially never overwrites local changes.
Description: PGP signature