On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:02:53 -0700 Chris White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Monday 11 September 2006 15:22, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > * Otherwise, try again with ``._cfg0001_name``, then | > ``._cfg0002_name`` and so on (base ten is used for the number part) | > until a usable filename is found. | | For what purpose are the older cfg[number]_name files kept around? I | ask because I would anticipate the default behavior for replacing | configuration files with their pending updates to be picking the | newest update. That said, the previous versions would not serve a | purpose, or is there something I don't see?
Existing tools ask the user which file they want to use when there's more than one. It's possible that this is more useful behaviour, especially if, say, someone is upgrading and downgrading the same package repeatedly for testing purposes. The purpose of these specifications isn't to change behaviour, except for small things where obvious and clear bugs or deficiencies are found (which I don't think is the case here). Rather, they're to document and clarify what current behaviour should be considered reliable rather than merely a coincidence of how Portage happens to work. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
