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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G0JxM-0002SH-Kc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:15:25 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6BFE4iE020991; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:14:04 GMT Received: from mxo5.broadbandsupport.net (mxo5.broadbandsupport.net [209.55.3.85]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6BF7qQj020239 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:07:53 GMT Received: from [192.168.100.4] (unknown [207.68.225.84]) by mxo5.broadbandsupport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9015248A5C for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44B3BE9A.7020809@vista-express.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:07:06 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060703 SeaMonkey/1.0.2 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Things that can be improved References: <44AEB475.8000702@maestroprogramador.com> <20060708203707.GB6713@waltdnes.org> <200607082259.24713@frappe.xs4all.nl> <44B120C2.5050704@mid.email-server.info> <20060711110506.GC6816@waltdnes.org> <44B386E7.3000303@mid.message-center.info> In-Reply-To: <44B386E7.3000303@mid.message-center.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-broadbandsupport.net-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-broadbandsupport.net-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-broadbandsupport.net-MailScanner-From: teendale@vista-express.com X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: e73f4bb7-ca56-4af3-86c3-6082ecda0b6d X-Archives-Hash: 0c4be87057fcaa28f60f5d18cef1e2b3 Alexander Skwar wrote: > Walter Dnes wrote: > > >> I think there's a mis-understanding here. Gerhard and I are >> complaining about config files being possibly *OVERWRITTEN* with default >> settings. If there's no config file, sure write the default config >> file. But if someone has customized a config file, assume that they >> know what they're doing, and leave settings alone. >> > > And that's what's currently happening - the settings are left > alone, *UNLESS* you make etc-update overwrite your original > file. But generally, the files are *NOT* touched. > > Alexander Skwar > Correct. I can remember when it used to try to overwrite fstab every time, well, it seemed like it anyway. It doesn't do that anymore though. It puts the new file there but the one we, the person in the chair, changed does not get touched until you run etc-update and tell it to change it. Careful with that -5 option. Sounds like some are not using etc-update correctly. Dale :-) :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list