[gentoo-user] dispatch-conf merge

[gentoo-user] dispatch-conf merge

[Graham Murray]

Is there any way to improve the granularity in the merge function of
dispatch-conf, or make it more intelligent? 

The particular situation where it gives me problems is in configuration
files where the value of an option has been manually changed following
initial installation, then on an upgrade a new option is added close to
the one previously changed. In this situation, dispatch-conf almost
invariably wants to reset the changed option line back to its default.
When selecting 'm' to merge changes it will present a left hand side
with the already existing value (often plus other lines) with the right
hand side with the default lines for both the existing line(s) and the
new ones. 

Re: [gentoo-user] dispatch-conf merge

[Roy Wright]

On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:21 AM, Graham Murray wrote:

> Is there any way to improve the granularity in the merge function of
> dispatch-conf, or make it more intelligent?
>
> The particular situation where it gives me problems is in  
> configuration
> files where the value of an option has been manually changed following
> initial installation, then on an upgrade a new option is added close  
> to
> the one previously changed. In this situation, dispatch-conf almost
> invariably wants to reset the changed option line back to its default.
> When selecting 'm' to merge changes it will present a left hand side
> with the already existing value (often plus other lines) with the  
> right
> hand side with the default lines for both the existing line(s) and the
> new ones.
>

My habit when manually tweaking a config file is to copy the line then  
comment
out the original, like:

original:

foo=some default

changed to:

#foo=some default
foo=bar

this seems to help dispatch-conf some.

For really ugly merges, I just skip in dispatch-conf, then merge using  
kdiff3.

HTH,
Roy

Re: [gentoo-user] dispatch-conf merge

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch 03 Juni 2009, Graham Murray wrote:
> Is there any way to improve the granularity in the merge function of
> dispatch-conf, or make it more intelligent?
>
> The particular situation where it gives me problems is in configuration
> files where the value of an option has been manually changed following
> initial installation, then on an upgrade a new option is added close to
> the one previously changed. In this situation, dispatch-conf almost
> invariably wants to reset the changed option line back to its default.
> When selecting 'm' to merge changes it will present a left hand side
> with the already existing value (often plus other lines) with the right
> hand side with the default lines for both the existing line(s) and the
> new ones.

try cfg-update. It is way smarter than dispatch-conf.

Re: [gentoo-user] dispatch-conf merge

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:21:10 +0100, Graham Murray wrote:

> Is there any way to improve the granularity in the merge function of
> dispatch-conf, or make it more intelligent? 
> 
> The particular situation where it gives me problems is in configuration
> files where the value of an option has been manually changed following
> initial installation, then on an upgrade a new option is added close to
> the one previously changed. In this situation, dispatch-conf almost
> invariably wants to reset the changed option line back to its default.

I switched from dispatch-conf to conf-update a while ago and much prefer
it. The merging is more flexible and rarely has problems as you describe.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] dispatch-conf merge

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 03 June 2009 08:52:22 Neil Bothwick wrote:

> I switched from dispatch-conf to conf-update a while ago and much prefer
> it. The merging is more flexible and rarely has problems as you describe.

Well I'm still using etc-update. The only difficult case is when squid is 
updated on my proxy box, and that's because of the sheer size of its config 
file. I handle this one myself.

-- 
Rgds
Peter