On 16-05-2012 11:48:20 +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mié, 16-05-2012 a las 11:42 +0200, Fabian Groffen escribió: > > On 16-05-2012 12:36:03 +0300, Eray Aslan wrote: > > > On 2012-05-16 12:13 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > >>> make.conf(5) man page: > > > >>> This causes the CONFIG_PROTECT behavior to be skipped for files that > > > >>> have not been modified since they were installed. > > > > > > > > +1 very good idea > > > > > > Hmm, does that mean that when a default changes in (or some new setting > > > is added to) an app config file, I'll get no prompt and no warning > > > assuming I go with the default settings in the app? That presumes that > > > the new default or the new setting does not break my setup. That is a > > > big assumption. > > > > I'd think so, yes > > But similar assumption applies to current behavior: if a user forgets to > run dispatch-conf after updating and machine is rebooted (by error, due > some power failure, due other users rebooting it...), they will probably > get failures when booting and, for example, some init.d scripts file to > start due obsolete conf.d files being preserved by default.
True, but we currently have a message for this, telling you to update your config files, while I guess there is no (persistent) message that some of your config files were overwritten, with which unknown differences (if any) triggering different behaviour. IOW it is impossible to review changes with this setting. Maybe we can just keep backups of the older conf-files if they are different (besides comments), renamed like myapp.conf-myapp-1.0-r4 and have a tool (or reuse a tool) to review and/or cleanup this every once in a while? -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
