Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...> writes: > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:31:50 +0000 (UTC) > Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@...> wrote: > > > I'm slightly confused by your directory layout here. Let's say > > > that /var/foo is also protected. Would that live in /var/foo/.c-p > > > or /etc/.c-p/var/foo? > > > > /var/foo/.c-p > > Wrong answer!
Well, I'm not wedded to that statement. If you think it would be better to have *all* stuff that is config_protect share that same directory, I'm perfectly fine with that. > I think we need to be careful here. Replacing some of the silliness we > inherited with config-protect is a good idea. What we don't want to do > is tie config-protect into any particular user policy, particularly if > that system is complicated and involves configuration management. The > default should be something simple; being able to support fancy stuff > on top of that is something a good design should allow, not something > it should enforce. > > Perhaps a better question to ask is something like "how would we design > config protection if it didn't already exist?". From the package > mangler side there's probably not much difference here between having a > choice of two mechanisms, or having one mechanism that's heavily > parameterised. If it didn't exist, I *would* impose that chronological serialization unequivocally. I think it just makes more sense to deal with any updates that come from updating a package to version 2 on Wednesday before dealing with an update to version 3 on Friday. _______________________________________________ Exherbo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
