From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DtRNX-0002CG-58 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:41:27 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6FEdRHV016175; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:39:27 GMT Received: from mx1.pandasys.net (mx1.pandasys.net [81.187.228.196]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6FEVZk9017067 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:31:35 GMT Received: from newpennan.pandasys.net (newpennan [81.187.228.197]) by mx1.pandasys.net (8.13.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6FEVnHK027064 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:31:49 +0100 Received: from newpennan.pandasys.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newpennan.pandasys.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6FEVnrM018477 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:31:49 +0100 Received: (from apache@localhost) by newpennan.pandasys.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j6FEVnx5018476; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:31:49 +0100 Received: from ln-bas00.csfb.com ([198.240.128.75]) (SquirrelMail authenticated user peter) by webmail.pandasys.net with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:31:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <35358.198.240.128.75.1121437909.squirrel@webmail.pandasys.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:31:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [gentoo-user] CONFIG_PROTECT problem From: "Peter Campion-Bye" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: -2.60 BAYES_00 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.45 X-Archives-Salt: 0d19aec9-d02c-4972-815f-17e72cb304cf X-Archives-Hash: 6b583f56a24459fe1b49f1034fd045fe Hi, Apologies if I've misunderstood the use of CONFIG_PROTECT, but I think I've found a hole in it. As I have lots of stuff under /var/www/localhost/htdocs which contains configuration files mixed in with the code ( phpmyadmin, phpldapadmin, phpwiki, squirrelmail, gallery etc ) I have put the path /var/www/localhost/htdocs into CONFIG_PROTECT in make.conf. When one of these packages is upgraded this seems to work fine. Last night, after upgrading PHP to 4.4.0 my wiki was broken. I thought a good place to start would be to re-emerge phpwiki, so I did. During the emerge it flashed up a message about this being a package that it couldn't upgrade, so it would be unmerged it first. It appears that this bypassed the CONFIG_PROTECT mechanism, as when the new files were installed the original had been removed, so no ._cfg0000_ files were created for the changed files. Having no recent backup (lesson learned!) I had to recreate the phpwiki config, which is a non-trivial job. So the question is, how can config files be protected in this kind of situation (other than backing them up) - is there another mechanism to protect files from being overwritten, and how many packages are likely to do an unmerge before re-emerging, and is there ay way of knowing? I believe the default behaviour on umnerging a package is to leave its configuration files in place, this doesn't seem to apply to the web apps. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list