On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:15:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:02:53 -0700 Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | On Monday 11 September 2006 15:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > * Otherwise, try again with ``._cfg0001_name``, then > | > ``._cfg0002_name`` and so on (base ten is used for the number part) > | > until a usable filename is found. > | > | For what purpose are the older cfg[number]_name files kept around? I > | ask because I would anticipate the default behavior for replacing > | configuration files with their pending updates to be picking the > | newest update. That said, the previous versions would not serve a > | purpose, or is there something I don't see? > > Existing tools ask the user which file they want to use when there's > more than one. It's possible that this is more useful behaviour, > especially if, say, someone is upgrading and downgrading the same > package repeatedly for testing purposes.
Personally, think the behaviour should be that it ensures a copy of the file winds up config protected; in other words, if a preexisting copy is already sitting in the config protected file stack (essentially), don't see any point to adding yet another file. Renaming to max + 1, or reusing the max if the match is the max is the match. Pkgcore doesn't *quite* do this (reuses any match), but shifting the file in the 'stack' makes more sense imo. ~harring
pgpyG2juoxTI5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
