On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:51:09 +0200 Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Comments both on the nature and the specifics of the specification
| > would be welcomed. In particular, I'd like to know if people think
| > we're mandating the appropriate degree of specificity and whether
| > we're providing sufficient generality to avoid overly restricting
| > innovation.
| 
| I think this is overly restrictive, actually. It's a good idea to
| specify which files and directories will be matched by CONFIG_PROTECT
| and _MASK, since that's something ebuilds end up using, but it may be
| better to leave the details on how they will be protected up to the
| package manager (which can in turn make it configurable for the user).
| For one example of what a package manager, if configured to do so,
| should in my opinion be allowed to do: automatically remove unmodified
| and abandoned configuration files on updates. (This is not the same as
| setting CONFIG_PROTECT=-*.) For another, a package manager, if
| configured to do so, should in my opinion be allowed to store the
| config files on a (possibly local) cvs/svn server in addition to the
| real filesystem, avoiding ._cfg* files altogether. Specifying how
| they will be protected prevents things like this.

Hm, the specification doesn't preclude additional functionality. It
just describes how things should work when normal configuration
protection is in action.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaranm at ciaranm.org