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 ...

Reply via email to