On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:28:22AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:07:36 -0600, Chad Perrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Do you know this from personal experience, or are you just assuming that > > I won't pull out all my hair five seconds after I discover it deleted a > > bunch of shit I wanted to keep? > > As I said, I can confirm it for bookmarks in Firefox. It's a similar > thing with Thunderbird's mailboxes. > > The rest is just deduction from UNIX principles, formed into a kind > of counter-question: Why (and how) should user data be saved within > the application's directory structures?
I've learned a long time ago to not rely on deducing things from a Unixy perspective when it comes to big, fat, bloated GUI applications. If that worked most of the time with such applications, Firefox would be a very different application today. I found the fact that Firefox switched from plain text to an unreadable database format for storing cookie exceptions somewhat surprising (and it broke a cookie policy exception searching utility I had written because Firefox doesn't provide worthwhile cookie policy exception searching). > > The update process will ONLY have effect on the files installed by the > port. Are your user files mentioned in the corresponding control files > of the port? Surely not - how could they? The port will only delete > those files that are list as have been installed by the port, nothing > more, nothing less. Good point. Thanks for the perspective. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Henry Spencer: "Those who don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."
pgpxlhC1drtzR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
