Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> wrote:
>> Yes, ucf should not touch the configuration file, because the merge
>> was done by etcgit. When ucf sees the “old” configuration file it's
>> already updated by etcgit. The ucf call is only to let ucf update it's
>> internal database.
>
> ucf only changes the configuration file if the user asks it
> to. And the user, in your scheme, may never even know there is a file to
> be updated -- since you have effectively removed ucf functionality.
>
> This sounds more like etckeeper conflicts with ucf.
>
> I suggest you look more into how to integrate ucf mandated
> changes into etckeeper, rather than just gutting ucf.
>From the little information I have about etcgit and etckeeper, it seems
to me that Manoj is right. It may, however, actually make sense to
divert (or change) ucf to make etc{git,keeper} usable with it: It would
have to commit the file to the correct branch of the repository (and
then update it's own database by doing something similar to what was
proposed originally).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
