On Jan 07 11:49:41, dera...@openbsd.org wrote: > Jan Stary <h...@stare.cz> wrote: > > > > 1) If you edit that file yourself, > > > > Is there any other way this file is supposed to come to existence > > (except the one containing the default answers, which sysupgrade > > writes itself) beside editing it by hand? > > sysupgrade creates it, exactly as it wants it to be. > > If you edit it, you are no longer using sysupgrade. You are on your > own. > > > > how can you say you are using sysupgrade? > > > > Perhaps I was unclear: I took the response log of a sysupgrade run > > (as mailed afterwards) and created /auto_upgrade.conf from it. > > I am not touching sysupgrade itself, obviously. > > Ah, you edited the file. > > Then you are not using sysupgrade. You are using your own process, and > you need to understand all the consequences. misc@ owes you nothing. > > > > sysupgrade manages the whole process. When you subvert a program, you are > > > responsible. > > > > Is creating /auto_upgrade.conf considered subversion? > > No. You can create your own /auto_upgrade.conf > > But if you create it, it is not sysupgrade that created it
OK, this is where my whole premise is wrong it seems: namely, that /auto_upgrade.conf is a user-edited config of the sysupgrade process. Sorry for the noise. > Buy a bigger machine. Or use Linux, Now that is just rude ...