On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:37:41 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 01:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > Either %config or %config(noreplace) can cause problems during update.
> > Neither one is completely safe with regard to breaking a program at
> > runtime. It can be necessa
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 01:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Either %config or %config(noreplace) can cause problems during update.
> Neither one is completely safe with regard to breaking a program at
> runtime. It can be necessary to switch from %config(noreplace) to %config,
> or vice versa, in
On 04.08.2015 19:38, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:39 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
>>> Btw, rpmlint does not override Fedora's packaging guidelines:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files
>>
>> Not override, but good when rpmlint follows on pac
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:39 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> > If not marking the files below /etc as %config, any update would overwrite
> > them.
> >
> > Marking them as %config signals RPM to handle the update more gracefully.
>
> Yes, true. It will handle the update more gracefully, however it do
Hello Michael,
On 03.08.2015 20:15, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:02:26 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
>
>> The only one message that I am trying to say in this point is:
>> configuration files for me should be designed to configure/modify by
>> administrator or directly by applicati
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:48:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> * as long the config fiel is untouched it will be overwritten
> >> and in sync with the package due updates
> >
> > Same when marking as %config. Same for all ordinary files.
>
> yes, but not relevant
Really? Ordinary files in /et
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:22:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly wi
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:22:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> > And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
> > Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly with old
> > config files and new config fi
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly with old
config files and new config files created as .rpmnew? Testing for all such
changes is not a trivial t
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:02:26 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> The only one message that I am trying to say in this point is:
> configuration files for me should be designed to configure/modify by
> administrator or directly by application.
A moot point, too.
First of all, if not installing prebuilt RP
Hello Michael,
W dniu 03.08.2015 o 13:09, Michael Schwendt pisze:
>> In my opinion that this type of files can be classified as pre-defined
>> settings files, not configuration files. In any case, it looks that we
>> have different understanding configuration files and it causes cross
>> over our
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:09:43 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> I trying to express my opinion about my understanding 'configuration
> files' meaning.
Of course.
> In my opinion that this type of files can be classified as pre-defined
> settings files, not configuration files. In any case, it looks that
On 02.08.2015 23:58, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 2 August 2015 at 22:57, Jonathan Underwood
> wrote:
>> On 2 August 2015 at 15:29, Marcin Haba wrote:
>>> My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
>>> purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something
>>>
On 02.08.2015 23:15, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 16:29:06 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
>
A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file?
>>>
>>> Certainly. It's a cheap way to set a program's runtime configuration
>>> instead of implementing a full config file loader/
On 2 August 2015 at 22:57, Jonathan Underwood
wrote:
> On 2 August 2015 at 15:29, Marcin Haba wrote:
>> My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
>> purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something
>> (application, service, single program, script...whateve
On 2 August 2015 at 15:29, Marcin Haba wrote:
> My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
> purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something
> (application, service, single program, script...whatever). If they are
> dedicated only for reading then from my p
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 16:29:06 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> >> A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file?
> >
> > Certainly. It's a cheap way to set a program's runtime configuration
> > instead of implementing a full config file loader/parser.
>
> My image of configuration files is
On 02.08.2015 14:48, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:24:00 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
>
>>> The explanation is given by "rpmlint -i …".
>>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
>> unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:24:00 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> > The explanation is given by "rpmlint -i …".
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
> unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location.
Well, it is the contents of the file that matter.
On 02.08.2015 12:34, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> My question is: what is valid answer for this case?
>
> The explanation is given by "rpmlint -i …".
>
Hello,
Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location. Please look:
oss
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:39:28 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
>
> One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
>
> ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/o
On 02.08.2015 08:54, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 08/02/2015 08:39 AM, Marcin Haba wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
>>
>> One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
>>
>> ossim-data.x86_64: W
On 08/02/2015 08:39 AM, Marcin Haba wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh
Because ossim.sh is
23 matches
Mail list logo
