Re: Question about profile.d scripts definition in Spec file

[Reindl Harald]

Am 03.08.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Michael Schwendt:

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:22:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:

And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly with old
config files and new config files created as .rpmnew? Testing for all such
changes is not a trivial task

well, the point is: you can never know if a future version will work
with the old configs, *but*

* as long the config fiel is untouched it will be overwritten
    and in sync with the package due updates

Same when marking as %config. Same for all ordinary files.

yes, but not relevant

* you have at least the .rpmnew file with the current defaults

And the not replaced config file may not survive a reboot or a restart
of the service already due to incompatibilities (as the worst case
scenario)

so %config(noreplace) is not only he better choice, it's the only one
except ship no config at all but only a config.readme and force the
admin to copy that to the right location (in case of network aware
services i would honestly prefer thex won't start at all without at
least one look at the config from the user)

The thread was about rpmlint warning about files in /etc not being
marked as %config:

   W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh

the question is simply answered:



anything which is not intended to for local changes belongs to /usr

as sysadmin i expect *anything* below /etc as configuration intended to be changed local and not overwritten by regular package updates

Whether to mark them %config(noreplace) instead (to follow guidelines)
is another question

yes

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct