On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:09:52PM +0000, Jörg Sommer wrote: > >> the configuration files modified by the administrator are stored. The > >> former branch is updated when ucf or apt-get is run. Then these
> > How is the former branch updated with the new version, since you > > are using UCF_FORCE_CONFFOLD? The documented effect is to retain > > whatever was on the file system, no matter what. > Therefore, I use the wrapper around ucf. The postinst script calls > ucf <New File> <Destination> > So I've the new file and know where it should go. I can update the file > in the branch with the original files and then merge this branch with the > local configuration branch and install this result underneath /etc. Then > the real ucf can update it's database, but it should not touch the file > I've put underneath /etc. It's > save_original > merge_with_current > export UCF_FORCE_CONFFOLD=1 > ucf.etcgit "$@" So this will leave the ucf db with a horribly incorrect view of the current state of the config file, and if the user ever removes etcgit, there'll be a real mess. > > Anything else should be reflected in a conflicts relationship > > between ucf and etckeeper, not a diversion, since the diversion does > > not actually maintain the functionality of ucf. > Interesting idea. Etcgit could replace ucf. I'll think about it. As a maintainer of packages that depend on ucf, I think that would be a reason to conflict with etcgit in order to spare users the pain of the issue above. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
