On 2013-04-20 at 16:17 -0700, Charles Polisher wrote: > There's an interesting blog post on this - > http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/WhyNotEtckeeper?showcomments > which observes that with etckeeper & friends you'll be fighting > your package management system. Some good point/counterpoint in > the comments, too.
If your package management system insists on owning all files in /etc/ and complaining if you choose to change the state of some them by rolling back a change, then your package management system is broken. It's acceptable for package management to create new files in /etc/ on first install but if it wants to own the ongoing state then it's flawed. There are obvious exceptions; eg, /etc/alternatives/ on Debian, but as long as your revision control layer lets you snapshots changes made in-place instead of treating /etc/ as a read-only checkout, you're good. Since etckeeper hooks _into_ apt, yum, etc, I'm not seeing a problem here. -Phil _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
