On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:15:34AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:02:53 -0700 Chris White <chriswhite@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | On Monday 11 September 2006 15:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > * Otherwise, try again with ``._cfg0001_name``, then
> | > ``._cfg0002_name`` and so on (base ten is used for the number part)
> | > until a usable filename is found. 
> | 
> | For what purpose are the older cfg[number]_name files kept around?  I
> | ask because I would anticipate the default behavior for replacing
> | configuration files with their pending updates to be picking the
> | newest update.  That said, the previous versions would not serve a
> | purpose, or is there something I don't see?
> 
> Existing tools ask the user which file they want to use when there's
> more than one. It's possible that this is more useful behaviour,
> especially if, say, someone is upgrading and downgrading the same
> package repeatedly for testing purposes.

Personally, think the behaviour should be that it ensures a copy of 
the file winds up config protected; in other words, if a preexisting 
copy is already sitting in the config protected file stack 
(essentially), don't see any point to adding yet another file.

Renaming to max + 1, or reusing the max if the match is the max is the 
match.

Pkgcore doesn't *quite* do this (reuses any match), but shifting the 
file in the 'stack' makes more sense imo.
~harring