From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19835 invoked by uid 1002); 17 Sep 2003 15:03:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2754 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2003 15:03:23 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v599) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org From: Stroller Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:02:29 +0100 To: gentoo-user@gentoo.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.599) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions.. X-Archives-Salt: 567c0271-4757-4d4c-a166-ca4cd7f37d48 X-Archives-Hash: 95716869204db091ccfb4b6db14bf52c On 17 Sep 2003, at 1:24 pm, Gwendolyn van der Linden wrote: > brett holcomb [mailto:brettholcomb@charter.net] wrote: > >> Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your >> system will break. > > Exactly. I would vote for keeping /etc/fstab.example in portage, and > making the copying/editing part of the installation procedure (cp > /etc/fstab.example /etc/fstab; nano -w /etc/fstab). I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if this was changed, were you to file it as a bug. I'm cross posting to gentoo-dev to see what they think. Stroller. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list