Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Package Manager Specification: configuration protection

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1691 bytes --]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:19:40 +0200 Simon Stelling <blubb@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > Protected Locations
| > ===================
| > 
| > Protected locations are determined by the ``CONFIG_PROTECT``
| > environment variable, which is defined in the profiles and which
| > may be augmented or overridden by the current environment and user
| > configuration files. This variable contains a space separated list
| > of values which are matched against the beginning of a full file
| > path and name of files to be installed.
| 
| "which are matched against the beginning of a full file path" would
| mean that e.g. CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc/foo" would protect the following:
| 
| /etc/foobar/doh
| /etc/foo
| /etc/foobaz
| 
| .. or did I misunderstand something here? I don't know whether that is
| the current behaviour of portage, but IMO it certainly shouldn't be.
| It should rather be
| 
| /etc/foo (file)
| or, if /etc/foo is a dir:
| /etc/foo/*

Mm. I had a play with this. I'd like someone else to do independent
tests, because I'm seeing something weird here. But it looks like
Portage's current behaviour is:

with CONFIG_PROTECT="/foo":
* if /foo is a file, it's not protected
* if /foo is a directory, its contents (including subdirectories) are
protected
* /foofoo (file) is not protected
* /foobar/baz is not protected

and weirdly, with CONFIG_PROTECT="/foo/"
* if /foo/ is a directory, its contents are protected during unmerge
but not during merge

All of this is rather weird, and doesn't match up to what I've been
told by Portage people that Portage is supposed to do...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaranm at ciaranm.org


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]