Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Conary

[andrea ferraris <andrea_ferraris@libero.it>]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 10:18:56PM -0500, Ed Grimm wrote:
> 
>>My issue is: Gentoo's patch system does not take current state into
>>account in any appropriate manner.  This means that any file in /etc
>>which I have made changes will be updated improperly; I'll therefore
>>need to either throw out new changes or adapt them to my changes every
>>time Gentoo considers updating them.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's possible to magically update configuration files that you
> have altered and be able to tell you that the updated configuration file
> still is 100% functional.

100% maybe not, but actually the gentoo way is 0% and maybe between 0 
and 100 there are some other figures ;-)

>>As an example, I'm not using the standard Gentoo partition layout.  This
>>means that, every so often, Gentoo tries to "fix" my fstab. 
> 
> 
> Ignore the update. There is no reason why you should update your /etc/fstab;
> unless you alter filesystems or partition layouts, /etc/fstab is static.

I did that most times, but why I have to do it?!
To avoid such annoyance it's not needed AI or grid computing, it's 
enough Animal Intelligence ;-) anyway Scriptable Intelligence.

>>Other files which tend to be incredibly frustrating are basic config
>>files.  For example, /etc/etc-update.conf.  Every time an upgrade
>>decides it wants to check on the status of this file, it decides that,
>>on the whole, I was mistaken regarding my choice of difference viewer,
>>and the various other options I specified.
> 
> 
> You can interactively merge the changes. Most of the time, you can easily
> skim through the changes it proposes and decide that there is no need to
> merge them.

As said, but why I have to do that if most times it could be avoided by 
means of a kind script?

Andrea

--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list