[gentoo-dev] new config files....

[gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Zach Forrest]

Is there any particular reason for new config files to be hidden? I 
would personally prefer dropping the period so the format would be 
'_cfg????_*'. That way they're out in the open and easy to deal with.

Zach

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 665 bytes --]

lör 2001-12-08 klockan 04.00 skrev Zach Forrest:
> Is there any particular reason for new config files to be hidden? I 
> would personally prefer dropping the period so the format would be 
> '_cfg????_*'. That way they're out in the open and easy to deal with.

eek, :) I wouldn't want my /etc to be full of _cfg???_*, much better
imho with the current one.

When merging it tells you how many config-files that needs update then
you just have to do:

cd /etc
find . -name "._cfg*" 

and then deal with them

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Zach Forrest]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1111 bytes --]

OK, so I'm a little lazy.

It might not be a bad idea to be able to type 'emerge --newconfigs' to 
make things a little more elegant. Either that or include a script with 
portage (see attachment). It may seem trivial for something so simple, 
but I think hiding implementation details is just good practice. If, for 
some reason (e.g. divine intervention), the naming of the config files 
changed, users wouldn't be affected. They could still type 'emerge 
--newconfigs' and do so with a smile.

Zach.


Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> lör 2001-12-08 klockan 04.00 skrev Zach Forrest:
> 
>>Is there any particular reason for new config files to be hidden? I 
>>would personally prefer dropping the period so the format would be 
>>'_cfg????_*'. That way they're out in the open and easy to deal with.
>>
> 
> eek, :) I wouldn't want my /etc to be full of _cfg???_*, much better
> imho with the current one.
> 
> When merging it tells you how many config-files that needs update then
> you just have to do:
> 
> cd /etc
> find . -name "._cfg*" 
> 
> and then deal with them
> 
> Regards,
>   Mikael Hallendal
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: newconfigs.sh --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 52 bytes --]

#!/usr/bin/env bash

find /etc -iname '._cfg????_*'

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Tom von Schwerdtner]

>...[snip]... Now when I'm diffing after installing a new
> baselayout I spend  a lot of time on files I've never even touched.

Speaking of which, if you have Vim installed, use vimdiff.  It's very 
handy (color hilighting, folding, etc)..

-T

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Geert Bevin]

There is one additional feature I'd appreciate very much personally. 
Currently if th file exists, the ._cfg file is created. Imho it would be 
nice if an additional check would be performed first to see if it has 
been modified by the user. If it hasn't, it can be overwritten  without 
problems. Now when I'm diffing after installing a new baselayout I spend 
a lot of time on files I've never even touched.

Mikael Hallendal wrote:

>eek, :) I wouldn't want my /etc to be full of _cfg???_*, much better
>imho with the current one.
>
>When merging it tells you how many config-files that needs update then
>you just have to do:
>
>cd /etc
>find . -name "._cfg*" 
>
>and then deal with them
>
>Regards,
>  Mikael Hallendal
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1316 bytes --]

On Sat, 2001-12-08 at 23:01, Zach Forrest wrote:
> OK, so I'm a little lazy.
> 
> It might not be a bad idea to be able to type 'emerge --newconfigs' to 
> make things a little more elegant. Either that or include a script with 
> portage (see attachment). It may seem trivial for something so simple, 
> but I think hiding implementation details is just good practice. If, for 
> some reason (e.g. divine intervention), the naming of the config files 
> changed, users wouldn't be affected. They could still type 'emerge 
> --newconfigs' and do so with a smile.
> 

Uhm, sound neat, but for one problem.  What about stuff like net.eth0
and so on that contains config settings ? Or passwd ?  You would not
like to reboot and you cannot login anymore :)  Ok, sure, we can
add exceptions to the rule (passwd, group, ...), but for the rest ..

The only solution will be if only stuff in /etc/init.d and some other
known files (that comes with baselayout, etc) gets updated, and ALL the
settings go into /etc/conf.d/ .  But then we will have to start moving
all those fast, and since drobbins do not want to use /etc/conf.d/ for
the baselayout rc-scripts, it will be a problem ....


Greetings,
-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Daniel Robbins]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Geert Bevin wrote:
> There is one additional feature I'd appreciate very much personally. 
> Currently if th file exists, the ._cfg file is created. Imho it would be 
> nice if an additional check would be performed first to see if it has 
> been modified by the user. If it hasn't, it can be overwritten  without 
> problems. Now when I'm diffing after installing a new baselayout I spend 
> a lot of time on files I've never even touched.

The way we do it now is a policy decision.  We simply do not want config
files to change without the admin knowing about it.  Assuming that an 
untouched file is "fair game" is still an assumption -- one that could
very easily be wrong.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Nathaniel Grady]

As a user I think a nice feature would be to have emerge actually list all the files that were saved as ._cfg... with an indication of if the original was "untouched" or "modified." An example of where this would be very usefull is the pcmcia-cs package. The /etc/pcmcia/config file may be updated to include some new cards and I never touched it because config.opts is where local changes are supposed to reside. Chances are PCMCIA will work fine and I won't even bother to look to see what config files could be updated because I don't have the time to worry about it, however someting may have been changed for a very good reason (possibly change a default for security reasons or some such). Even worse is the baselayout Geert Bevin complains about below. I understand the policy and thing it is sound, but i would still like a --overwrite-untouched that saves the original config file with a ._old prefix and gives a list at the end of config files i overwrote to give me a chance to make shure i didn't do someting i didn't want to (which menas it is only overwriting config files when told by the administrator, and even then doing so very cautiousally and making backups). 

just my 2 cents :)

--Nate

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 04:20:26PM -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 10:19:28PM +0100, Geert Bevin wrote:
> > There is one additional feature I'd appreciate very much personally. 
> > Currently if th file exists, the ._cfg file is created. Imho it would be 
> > nice if an additional check would be performed first to see if it has 
> > been modified by the user. If it hasn't, it can be overwritten  without 
> > problems. Now when I'm diffing after installing a new baselayout I spend 
> > a lot of time on files I've never even touched.
> 
> The way we do it now is a policy decision.  We simply do not want config
> files to change without the admin knowing about it.  Assuming that an 
> untouched file is "fair game" is still an assumption -- one that could
> very easily be wrong.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@gentoo.org>
> Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
> Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Geert Bevin]

good point, I'm thinking though of writing a little gui that detects the 
config files which are still pending. Show status about the old one 
(modif or not), show different new versions and easily diff and replace 
with one click. I'll see when I have to for this ... think it might be handy

Daniel Robbins wrote:

>The way we do it now is a policy decision.  We simply do not want config
>files to change without the admin knowing about it.  Assuming that an 
>untouched file is "fair game" is still an assumption -- one that could
>very easily be wrong.
>
>Best Regards,
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] new config files....

[Mikael Hallendal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 698 bytes --]

sön 2001-12-09 klockan 02.33 skrev Geert Bevin:
> good point, I'm thinking though of writing a little gui that detects the 
> config files which are still pending. Show status about the old one 
> (modif or not), show different new versions and easily diff and replace 
> with one click. I'll see when I have to for this ... think it might be handy

I think it would be nice to write this as a non-gui thing and then make
a gui for it. So that the same codebase can be used for different gui
(Gtk/QT/Tk*shrug*/whatever) and as a command line tool.

Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

-- 

Mikael Hallendal
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Leader
CodeFactory AB, Stockholm, Sweden


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]