On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:41:32 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > > >If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved > > >at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes. > > >I use etckeeper to do that, but it's a bit tiresome to isolate all local > > >changes (I have to save the diffs somewhere) (and a lost hope if you do > > >install etckeeper late in the workstation life). My git-fu is probably > > >not good enough (I am probably looking for a "pristine" branch and a > > >rebased "local" branch used in production). > > > > You might be interested in a proposal at UDS this week: > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-q-dpkg-pristine-conffiles
I've just skimmed over this, and at first sight I'm not planning on merging something like that into dpkg. > I would much rather we had a more general mechanism of storing the > real configuration files (as opposed to just md5s) by dpkg itself, > which would enable proper merging of admin changes between old and > new conffiles, and perhaps also allow dpkg to implement ucf-like > conffile handling (or remove the need for ucf entirely). These > could be stored under /var/lib/dpkg/conffiles (for example). This has been discussed before, it's on dpkg's roadmap, there's even some draft code by Sean Finney, but the semantics where not right. I started reworking it some time ago, and it's on my short term TODO, either for 1.16.x or 1.17.x. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120512020303.ga23...@gaara.hadrons.org
