Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Philip Hands writes ("Re: init system policy"):
>> Would it perhaps make sense to have etckeeper additionally keep track of
>> files in /lib directories for packages that have this /etc overrides
>> /lib scheme? Such packages could add their config-outside-etc
>> directories to a list somewhere, perhaps, which packages like etckeeper
>> could then pick up on.
>
> I don't know how much etckeeper users use modifying (rather than
> recording) git operations, but I can imagine that this approach might
> easily result in etckeeper's git fighting with dpkg.How so? I don't know about others, but I use etckeeper to track changes that I make to config files (when I remember) and am very happy for it to do its daily autocommit of changes (when I forget). I also occasionally fetch the etckeeper repo from what's supposed to be a similar machine, and then can do git diffs between the local files and the ones from a working server (yes I know there are security implications), and where it's obvious that I just want the config from the other one I can then just checkout that file (which strikes me as no different than if I'd just edited it by hand). If the thing that broke my server was either an unintentional edit of a /lib file, or the fact that a default that I had been relying upon just changed on upgrade, then being able to say "what changed since last week" is really helpful. Having stuff hidden from etckeeper means that the answer goes from being a definitive "here's everything that's changed since things were working" to being "well there's this lot that changed, plus there may be other things, but I wasn't paying attention, sorry" That seems like a rather serious regression to me (at least for my use cases). Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
pgp2ezDRZdqHE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
