Subject: Re: don't remove ksh
To: NetBSD Userlevel Technical Discussion List <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/21/2001 00:01:04
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Greg A. Woods wrote:
# > Only in /etc, or only if you opted to overwrite the base system.
# That's what _you_ think -- but that's not what I'm talking about.
# > I can't
# > think of a single package that skrogs / or /usr off the top of my head.
# It's irrelevant. The _ONLY_ information that helps you distinguish
# original release files from anything else are timestamps, and we all
# know how unreliable timestamp information can be in many circumstances.
# Unless you "chflags schg" all the release files and directories you've
# got no way to guarantee that they are not touched or added to.
Now you're changing the terms of the argument, here. This *is* relevant.
Migrating to a db-based system for the base is nuts. The hierarchies
make more sense for a *person* who has to maintain the system. read further
# Regardless of how you install stuff or partition your system a proper
# manifest of release and add-on files and all their attributes is an
# essential prerequisite to even beginning to get a handle on
# configuration management, especially w.r.t. upgrades and patches.
"Let me check my notes..."
Okay, I can see that. I'm looking at this from potentially the wrong
side of the photograph, okay...
That said, perhaps it should be permissible to build a manifest from an
already existing system!
"Make this an option."
And don't go installing 3rd party stuff into the base hierarchy, but that's
my opinion. It's part of what hierarchies are for -- again, IMO.
NetBSD: My Computer Runs!