Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight I'm not asking for you to hold my hand. I just need someone to confirm whether or not I'm doing this correctly. It seems that any time there's questions about "etc-update" everyone seems to be "hush-hush". I've layed out what my goal is, what I've done so far, and am only needing confirmation. I've read to much info on in the Gentoo forums and am still perplexed.. JBanks --- Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just fishing here..+ acouple of questions. > > ** > > "My Goal" in this posting: > Is to learn how-to correctly manually update the files without the use of > "ect-update". > > How to do this correctly, I'm unsure of so far. > > Being new I want to take the time to manually diff each file to see what the > differences are of > which I know how to do,(using "diff" at its most basic level that-is) and is good > practice for > me > to get used to using "diff" as well as looking at the contents of these files to be > more > familiar > with my Gentoo surroundings/environment. I figure, if I know how to manually update > the needed > files, VERSUS using "etc-update", that this will make my Gentoo experience that much > more > fullfilling/enlightened, so to say.. > > Please correct my thinking where you see fit. :P > > So with that being said, this is where I'm at so far: > > > *** > > I ran, > bash-2.05b# emerge -uD system > > After this runs for a few hours, (dialup,:P,), I get back: > > * Regenerating GNU info directory index... > * Processed 56 info files. > * IMPORTANT: 25 config files in /etc need updating. > * Type emerge --help config to learn how to update config files. > > After looking at the info in "emerge --help config" I run, > > bash-2.05b# find /etc -iname '._cfg_*' > /etc/._cfg_inputrc > /etc/._cfg_rc.conf > /etc/._cfg_make.conf > /etc/._cfg_make.globals > /etc/._cfg_DIR_COLORS > /etc/conf.d/._cfg_net > /etc/init.d/._cfg_consolefont > /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkfs > /etc/init.d/._cfg_domainname > /etc/init.d/._cfg_keymaps > /etc/init.d/._cfg_net.eth0 > /etc/init.d/._cfg_modules > /etc/init.d/._cfg_clock > /etc/init.d/._cfg_hdparm > /etc/init.d/._cfg_bootmisc > /etc/init.d/._cfg_halt.sh > /etc/init.d/._cfg_serial > /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkroot > /etc/._cfg_services > /etc/._cfg_fstab > /etc/._cfg_group > /etc/._cfg_hosts > /etc/._cfg_issue > /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf > /etc/._cfg_shells > > ** > > > > Now, this is where my questions come in. > > Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". > > How to do this correctly I'm unsure of and want confirmation of, please. > > ** > > At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any suggestions > on using > "diff" > and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be helpful & appreciated as well.) > > ** > > For example: > bash-2.05b# diff make.globals ._cfg_make.globals > 3c3 > < # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.48 2003/07/17 > 04:46:52 > carpaski > Exp $ > --- > > # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.49 2003/08/21 > > 01:01:26 > carpaski > Exp $ > 44c44 > < FEATURES="sandbox ccache" > --- > > FEATURES="sandbox ccache autoaddcvs" > 51c51 > < USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES" > --- > > USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES LINGUAS" > > > > At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file and, (2)its > obvious > that > I want the new file in replace of the old one. Not only is it obvious but I was told > so: > > Quote: > * NOTICE: PLEASE *REPLACE* your make.globals. All user changes to variables > * in make.globals should be placed in make.conf. DO NOT MODIFY make.globals. > > * Feature additions are noted in help and make.conf descriptions. Update > * them using 'etc-update' please. Maintaining current configs for portage > * and other system packages is fairly important for the continued health > * of your system. > End Quote: > > > So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the /etc > directory, too: > > 1) > bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg_make.globals make.globals > > 2) > bash-2.05b# rm ._cfg_make.globals > > > Now my other question is: > > Assuming that this were the only file that had differences (hypothectically > speaking), WHAT, if > anything do I need to do to next to let Gentoo know I've made the changes manually > instead of > using "etc-update"? Again, correct my thinking of this where you see fit...if it > fits.. :P > > T
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Only thing i can say is instead of cp new.cfg old.cfg rm old.cfg u could just mv old.cfg new.cfg Joshua Banks wrote: Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight I'm not asking for you to hold my hand. I just need someone to confirm whether or not I'm doing this correctly. It seems that any time there's questions about "etc-update" everyone seems to be "hush-hush". I've layed out what my goal is, what I've done so far, and am only needing confirmation. I've read to much info on in the Gentoo forums and am still perplexed.. JBanks --- Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just fishing here..+ acouple of questions. ** "My Goal" in this posting: Is to learn how-to correctly manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". How to do this correctly, I'm unsure of so far. Being new I want to take the time to manually diff each file to see what the differences are of which I know how to do,(using "diff" at its most basic level that-is) and is good practice for me to get used to using "diff" as well as looking at the contents of these files to be more familiar with my Gentoo surroundings/environment. I figure, if I know how to manually update the needed files, VERSUS using "etc-update", that this will make my Gentoo experience that much more fullfilling/enlightened, so to say.. Please correct my thinking where you see fit. :P So with that being said, this is where I'm at so far: *** I ran, bash-2.05b# emerge -uD system After this runs for a few hours, (dialup,:P,), I get back: * Regenerating GNU info directory index... * Processed 56 info files. * IMPORTANT: 25 config files in /etc need updating. * Type emerge --help config to learn how to update config files. After looking at the info in "emerge --help config" I run, bash-2.05b# find /etc -iname '._cfg_*' /etc/._cfg_inputrc /etc/._cfg_rc.conf /etc/._cfg_make.conf /etc/._cfg_make.globals /etc/._cfg_DIR_COLORS /etc/conf.d/._cfg_net /etc/init.d/._cfg_consolefont /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkfs /etc/init.d/._cfg_domainname /etc/init.d/._cfg_keymaps /etc/init.d/._cfg_net.eth0 /etc/init.d/._cfg_modules /etc/init.d/._cfg_clock /etc/init.d/._cfg_hdparm /etc/init.d/._cfg_bootmisc /etc/init.d/._cfg_halt.sh /etc/init.d/._cfg_serial /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkroot /etc/._cfg_services /etc/._cfg_fstab /etc/._cfg_group /etc/._cfg_hosts /etc/._cfg_issue /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf /etc/._cfg_shells ** Now, this is where my questions come in. Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". How to do this correctly I'm unsure of and want confirmation of, please. ** At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any suggestions on using "diff" and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be helpful & appreciated as well.) ** For example: bash-2.05b# diff make.globals ._cfg_make.globals 3c3 < # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.48 2003/07/17 04:46:52 carpaski Exp $ --- # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.49 2003/08/21 01:01:26 carpaski Exp $ 44c44 < FEATURES="sandbox ccache" --- FEATURES="sandbox ccache autoaddcvs" 51c51 < USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES" --- USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES LINGUAS" At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file and, (2)its obvious that I want the new file in replace of the old one. Not only is it obvious but I was told so: Quote: * NOTICE: PLEASE *REPLACE* your make.globals. All user changes to variables * in make.globals should be placed in make.conf. DO NOT MODIFY make.globals. * Feature additions are noted in help and make.conf descriptions. Update * them using 'etc-update' please. Maintaining current configs for portage * and other system packages is fairly important for the continued health * of your system. End Quote: So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the /etc directory, too: 1) bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg_make.globals make.globals 2) bash-2.05b# rm ._cfg_make.globals Now my other question is: Assuming that this were the only file that had differences (hypothectically speaking), WHAT, if anything do I need to do to next to let Gentoo know I've made the changes manually instead of using "etc-update"? Again, correct my thinking of this where you see fit...if it fits.. :P Thanks, Joshua Banks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PRO
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and time for me. On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: > Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > > I'm not asking for you to hold my hand. I just need someone to confirm whether or > not I'm doing > this correctly. It seems that any time there's questions about "etc-update" everyone > seems to be > "hush-hush". > > I've layed out what my goal is, what I've done so far, and am only needing > confirmation. I've read > to much info on in the Gentoo forums and am still perplexed.. > > JBanks > --- Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just fishing here..+ acouple of questions. > > > > ** > > > > "My Goal" in this posting: > > Is to learn how-to correctly manually update the files without the use of > > "ect-update". > > > > How to do this correctly, I'm unsure of so far. > > > > Being new I want to take the time to manually diff each file to see what the > > differences are of > > which I know how to do,(using "diff" at its most basic level that-is) and is good > > practice for > > me > > to get used to using "diff" as well as looking at the contents of these files to > > be more > > familiar > > with my Gentoo surroundings/environment. I figure, if I know how to manually > > update the needed > > files, VERSUS using "etc-update", that this will make my Gentoo experience that > > much more > > fullfilling/enlightened, so to say.. > > > > Please correct my thinking where you see fit. :P > > > > So with that being said, this is where I'm at so far: > > > > > > *** > > > > I ran, > > bash-2.05b# emerge -uD system > > > > After this runs for a few hours, (dialup,:P,), I get back: > > > > * Regenerating GNU info directory index... > > * Processed 56 info files. > > * IMPORTANT: 25 config files in /etc need updating. > > * Type emerge --help config to learn how to update config files. > > > > After looking at the info in "emerge --help config" I run, > > > > bash-2.05b# find /etc -iname '._cfg_*' > > /etc/._cfg_inputrc > > /etc/._cfg_rc.conf > > /etc/._cfg_make.conf > > /etc/._cfg_make.globals > > /etc/._cfg_DIR_COLORS > > /etc/conf.d/._cfg_net > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_consolefont > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkfs > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_domainname > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_keymaps > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_net.eth0 > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_modules > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_clock > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_hdparm > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_bootmisc > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_halt.sh > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_serial > > /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkroot > > /etc/._cfg_services > > /etc/._cfg_fstab > > /etc/._cfg_group > > /etc/._cfg_hosts > > /etc/._cfg_issue > > /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf > > /etc/._cfg_shells > > > > ** > > > > > > > > Now, this is where my questions come in. > > > > Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". > > > > How to do this correctly I'm unsure of and want confirmation of, please. > > > > ** > > > > At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any suggestions > > on using > > "diff" > > and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be helpful & appreciated as well.) > > > > ** > > > > For example: > > bash-2.05b# diff make.globals ._cfg_make.globals > > 3c3 > > < # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.48 2003/07/17 > > 04:46:52 > > carpaski > > Exp $ > > --- > > > # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.49 2003/08/21 > > > 01:01:26 > > carpaski > > Exp $ > > 44c44 > > < FEATURES="sandbox ccache" > > --- > > > FEATURES="sandbox ccache autoaddcvs" > > 51c51 > > < USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES" > > --- > > > USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES LINGUAS" > > > > > > > > At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file and, > > (2)its obvious > > that > > I want the new file in replace of the old one. Not only is it obvious but I was > > told so: > > > > Quote: > > * NOTICE: PLEASE *REPLACE* your make.globals. All user changes to variables > > * in make.globals should be placed in make.conf. DO NOT MODIFY make.globals. > > > > * Feature additions are noted in help and make.conf descriptions. Update > > * them using 'etc-update' please. Maintaining current configs for portage > > * and other system packages is fairly important for the continued health > > * of your system. > > End Quote: > > > > > > So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the /etc > > directory, too: > > > > 1) > > bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg000
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
On Wednesday 17 September 2003 13:49, Joshua Banks wrote: > Just fishing here..+ acouple of questions. > > ** > > "My Goal" in this posting: > Is to learn how-to correctly manually update the files without the use of > "ect-update". Well, the "correct" way is to use etc-update. There's also a utility called dispatch-conf which is meant to be better than etc-update but not sure how it works - check the forums on that. > bash-2.05b# find /etc -iname '._cfg_*' > /etc/._cfg_inputrc > /etc/._cfg_rc.conf > /etc/._cfg_make.conf > /etc/._cfg_make.globals > /etc/._cfg_DIR_COLORS > /etc/conf.d/._cfg_net > /etc/init.d/._cfg_consolefont > /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkfs > /etc/init.d/._cfg_domainname > /etc/init.d/._cfg_keymaps > /etc/init.d/._cfg_net.eth0 > /etc/init.d/._cfg_modules > /etc/init.d/._cfg_clock > /etc/init.d/._cfg_hdparm > /etc/init.d/._cfg_bootmisc > /etc/init.d/._cfg_halt.sh > /etc/init.d/._cfg_serial > /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkroot > /etc/._cfg_services > /etc/._cfg_fstab > /etc/._cfg_group > /etc/._cfg_hosts > /etc/._cfg_issue > /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf > /etc/._cfg_shells This is essentially what etc-update first does. It checks other directories as well, by default defined in make.globals under CONFIG_PROTECT. > Now, this is where my questions come in. > > Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of > "ect-update". > > At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any > suggestions on using "diff" and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be > helpful & appreciated as well.) Personally, I like to see all the diffs before deciding what I want to keep from either file. I usually then just use nano on the new file to merge my changes to the old file. > At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file > So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the > /etc directory, too: > bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg_make.globals make.globals > bash-2.05b# rm ._cfg_make.globals That's okay, but this is better: bash-2.05b# mv ._cfg_make.globals make.globals I usually do this for (after editing) each file I'm interested in and then use etc-update's -5 to move the rest. I have been bitten slightly a couple of times when a gui program has changed a config file that I wasn't aware of. To be safe, don't automatically overwrite a file unless you know what it is. > Assuming that this were the only file that had differences (hypothectically > speaking), WHAT, if anything do I need to do to next to let Gentoo know > I've made the changes manually instead of using "etc-update"? Again, > correct my thinking of this where you see fit...if it fits.. :P As I said before, portage just scans for ._cfg???_* files, so they wont show up as needing updating after deleting them. Jason -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:30:14PM -0700, Joshua Banks wrote: > Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > > I'm not asking for you to hold my hand. I just need someone to confirm whether or > not I'm doing > this correctly. It seems that any time there's questions about "etc-update" everyone > seems to be > "hush-hush". I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. etc-update already allows you to see the differences and manually sort them out line by line or (my preference) in vimdiff mode. Only crazy people use the option for etc-update to automatically fix the files, and they end up with a broken system. > > Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". > > > > How to do this correctly I'm unsure of and want confirmation of, please. Why? Sure if you want to you can take all those files it says are changed and look at both versions with diff or vimdiff or whatever.. but etc-update calls these progams for you anyway. > > ** > > > > At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any suggestions > > on using > > "diff" > > and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be helpful & appreciated as well.) > > > > ** etc-update *is* the better way. :) > > At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file and, > > (2)its obvious > > that > > I want the new file in replace of the old one. Not only is it obvious but I was > > told so: > > > > Quote: > > * NOTICE: PLEASE *REPLACE* your make.globals. All user changes to variables > > * in make.globals should be placed in make.conf. DO NOT MODIFY make.globals. > > > > * Feature additions are noted in help and make.conf descriptions. Update > > * them using 'etc-update' please. Maintaining current configs for portage > > * and other system packages is fairly important for the continued health > > * of your system. > > End Quote: > > > > > > So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the /etc > > directory, too: > > > > 1) > > bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg_make.globals make.globals > > > > 2) > > bash-2.05b# rm ._cfg_make.globals Yes, if you have never edited a config file and now you have to merge in new changes then usually what you want to do is just take the update. And etc-update has an option for doing this. > > Now my other question is: > > > > Assuming that this were the only file that had differences (hypothectically > > speaking), WHAT, if > > anything do I need to do to next to let Gentoo know I've made the changes manually > > instead of > > using "etc-update"? Again, correct my thinking of this where you see fit...if it > > fits.. :P Removing the ._cfg file is enough to make portage forget about it, I think. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Thanks for the replies everyone. All the suggestions have helped. JBanks --- Andy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 11:30:14PM -0700, Joshua Banks wrote: > > Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > > > > I'm not asking for you to hold my hand. I just need someone to confirm whether or > > not I'm > doing > > this correctly. It seems that any time there's questions about "etc-update" > > everyone seems to > be > > "hush-hush". > > I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. etc-update > already allows you to see the differences and manually sort them out > line by line or (my preference) in vimdiff mode. > > Only crazy people use the option for etc-update to automatically fix > the files, and they end up with a broken system. > > > > Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". > > > > > > How to do this correctly I'm unsure of and want confirmation of, please. > > Why? > > Sure if you want to you can take all those files it says are changed > and look at both versions with diff or vimdiff or whatever.. but > etc-update calls these progams for you anyway. > > > > ** > > > > > > At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any > > > suggestions on using > > > "diff" > > > and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be helpful & appreciated as well.) > > > > > > ** > > etc-update *is* the better way. :) > > > > At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file and, > > > (2)its obvious > > > that > > > I want the new file in replace of the old one. Not only is it obvious but I was > > > told so: > > > > > > Quote: > > > * NOTICE: PLEASE *REPLACE* your make.globals. All user changes to variables > > > * in make.globals should be placed in make.conf. DO NOT MODIFY make.globals. > > > > > > * Feature additions are noted in help and make.conf descriptions. Update > > > * them using 'etc-update' please. Maintaining current configs for portage > > > * and other system packages is fairly important for the continued health > > > * of your system. > > > End Quote: > > > > > > > > > So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the /etc > > > directory, > too: > > > > > > 1) > > > bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg_make.globals make.globals > > > > > > 2) > > > bash-2.05b# rm ._cfg_make.globals > > Yes, if you have never edited a config file and now you have to > merge in new changes then usually what you want to do is just take > the update. And etc-update has an option for doing this. > > > > Now my other question is: > > > > > > Assuming that this were the only file that had differences (hypothectically > > > speaking), WHAT, > if > > > anything do I need to do to next to let Gentoo know I've made the changes > > > manually instead > of > > > using "etc-update"? Again, correct my thinking of this where you see fit...if it > > > fits.. :P > > Removing the ._cfg file is enough to make portage forget about it, I > think. > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Ok... So do I goto the list when I'm unsure about differences in files that I'm unsure of. Some of them are common sense type differences but others I'm unsure of like "dispatch-conf.conf" The new file doesn't have the header at the beginning and there are all sorts of changes that are beyond me at this point. Example of diff's in dispatch-conf.conf: Beginning of differences between /etc/dispatch-conf.conf and /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf --- /etc/dispatch-conf.conf 2003-07-26 13:39:27.0 -0700 +++ /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf 2003-09-16 05:52:02.0 -0700 @@ -1,10 +1,14 @@ # # dispatch-conf.conf -# $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/dispatch-conf.conf,v 1.3 2003/03/22 14:24:38 carpaski Exp $ +# # Directory to archive replaced configs archive-dir=/etc/config-archive +# Use rcs for storing files in the archive directory? +# (yes or no) +use-rcs=no + # Diff for display diff="diff -Nau %s %s" @@ -17,4 +21,8 @@ # Automerge files comprising only whitespace and/or comments # (yes or no) -replace-wscomments=yes +replace-wscomments=no + +# Automerge files that the user hasn't modified +# (yes or no) +replace-unmodified=no End of differences between /etc/dispatch-conf.conf and /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf ** How do I go about basing my decision now? Thanks, Jbanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Well, I do it by using my editor (jstar) to show both files - new on top, old on bottom. I then go through and see what is new and then modify one of the files. For example, with make.conf I keep my old and move stuff from the new one to the old. However, with the last baselayout /etc/services needed updating. I had some local services registered so I simply updated the new one and let etc-update merge it. You can also run diff old new | more to see what and how many changes there are. An automated updater would be nice but would probably introduce more problems than it would fix as it destroyed files. One thing I haven't figured out is why files like /etc/fstab and /etc/hosts are included in the updates. After all they are almost always updated by people and you definitely DO NOT want to update them with a new merge! On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 21:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just fishing here..+ acouple of questions. ** "My Goal" in this posting: Is to learn how-to correctly manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". How to do this correctly, I'm unsure of so far. Being new I want to take the time to manually diff each file to see what the differences are of which I know how to do,(using "diff" at its most basic level that-is) and is good practice for me to get used to using "diff" as well as looking at the contents of these files to be more familiar with my Gentoo surroundings/environment. I figure, if I know how to manually update the needed files, VERSUS using "etc-update", that this will make my Gentoo experience that much more fullfilling/enlightened, so to say.. Please correct my thinking where you see fit. :P So with that being said, this is where I'm at so far: *** I ran, bash-2.05b# emerge -uD system After this runs for a few hours, (dialup,:P,), I get back: * Regenerating GNU info directory index... * Processed 56 info files. * IMPORTANT: 25 config files in /etc need updating. * Type emerge --help config to learn how to update config files. After looking at the info in "emerge --help config" I run, bash-2.05b# find /etc -iname '._cfg_*' /etc/._cfg_inputrc /etc/._cfg_rc.conf /etc/._cfg_make.conf /etc/._cfg_make.globals /etc/._cfg_DIR_COLORS /etc/conf.d/._cfg_net /etc/init.d/._cfg_consolefont /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkfs /etc/init.d/._cfg_domainname /etc/init.d/._cfg_keymaps /etc/init.d/._cfg_net.eth0 /etc/init.d/._cfg_modules /etc/init.d/._cfg_clock /etc/init.d/._cfg_hdparm /etc/init.d/._cfg_bootmisc /etc/init.d/._cfg_halt.sh /etc/init.d/._cfg_serial /etc/init.d/._cfg_checkroot /etc/._cfg_services /etc/._cfg_fstab /etc/._cfg_group /etc/._cfg_hosts /etc/._cfg_issue /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf /etc/._cfg_shells ** Now, this is where my questions come in. Again, "My Goal", to manually update the files without the use of "ect-update". How to do this correctly I'm unsure of and want confirmation of, please. ** At this point, I'm just manually "diff"ing each file, one by one. (Any suggestions on using "diff" and "cp" in a better way than I'm using will be helpful & appreciated as well.) ** For example: bash-2.05b# diff make.globals ._cfg_make.globals 3c3 < # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.48 2003/07/17 04:46:52 carpaski Exp $ --- # $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/make.globals,v 1.49 2003/08/21 01:01:26 carpaski Exp $ 44c44 < FEATURES="sandbox ccache" --- FEATURES="sandbox ccache autoaddcvs" 51c51 < USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES" --- USE_EXPAND="VIDEO_CARDS INPUT_DEVICES LINGUAS" At this point, (1)I know logically that I've never messed with this file and, (2)its obvious that I want the new file in replace of the old one. Not only is it obvious but I was told so: Quote: * NOTICE: PLEASE *REPLACE* your make.globals. All user changes to variables * in make.globals should be placed in make.conf. DO NOT MODIFY make.globals. * Feature additions are noted in help and make.conf descriptions. Update * them using 'etc-update' please. Maintaining current configs for portage * and other system packages is fairly important for the continued health * of your system. End Quote: So would the correct thing to do in this (Specific) case, being inside the /etc directory, too: 1) bash-2.05b# cp ._cfg_make.globals make.globals 2) bash-2.05b# rm ._cfg_make.globals Now my other question is: Assuming that this were the only file that had differences (hypothectically speaking), WHAT, if anything do I need to do to
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you notice etc-update will remove all your changes. On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and time for me. On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
--- brett holcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I do it by using my editor (jstar) to show both > files - new on top, old on bottom. I then go through and > see what is new and then modify one of the files. For > example, with make.conf I keep my old and move stuff from > the new one to the old. However, with the last baselayout > /etc/services needed updating. I had some local services > registered so I simply updated the new one and let > etc-update merge it. > > You can also run diff old new | more to see what and how > many changes there are. > > An automated updater would be nice but would probably > introduce more problems than it would fix as it destroyed > files. One thing I haven't figured out is why files like > /etc/fstab and /etc/hosts are included in the updates. > After all they are almost always updated by people and > you definitely DO NOT want to update them with a new > merge! Thanks for the response Brett. All the info that I can get is helpfull. JBanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:00:59AM -0400, brett holcomb wrote: > Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your > system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf > file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you > notice etc-update will remove all your changes. etc-update won't break /etc/fstab if you pay attention to what you're doing. The etc-update interface takes some getting used to... I made a mess the first time I tried it - so it's a good idea to save the files you're updating before you start. But once you get the hang of using it, it's a lot less trouble than doing it by hand. Nathan Meyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 > Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and > >time for me. > > > > > >On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: > >>Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
RE: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
brett holcomb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your > system will break. Exactly. I would vote for keeping /etc/fstab.example in portage, and making the copying/editing part of the installation procedure (cp /etc/fstab.example /etc/fstab; nano -w /etc/fstab). Now I throw away new versions of /etc/fstab, that may include important comments or even important definitions such as for devfs or sysfs. I used to merge using Emacs ediff, but found it to quite cumbersome to page through long configuration files and deciding what to keep and what to merge. I guess the above is true for several other files. Any file that is hard/dangerous to merge automatically should NOT be in portage, but provided as an example or template instead. In some cases one could support optional configuration files that are read if they exist (if [ -f /etc/blah.local ]; then source /etc/blah.local; ...). My two Eurocents. Gwendolyn. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Unless it's a file that I edit and change I let etc-update handle it. I'm not familiar with this file but if you haven't messed with it or a program you use hasn't change it then give it to etc-update. On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok... So do I goto the list when I'm unsure about differences in files that I'm unsure of. Some of them are common sense type differences but others I'm unsure of like "dispatch-conf.conf" The new file doesn't have the header at the beginning and there are all sorts of changes that are beyond me at this point. Example of diff's in dispatch-conf.conf: Beginning of differences between /etc/dispatch-conf.conf and /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf --- /etc/dispatch-conf.conf 2003-07-26 13:39:27.0 -0700 +++ /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf 2003-09-16 05:52:02.0 -0700 @@ -1,10 +1,14 @@ # # dispatch-conf.conf -# $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/cnf/dispatch-conf.conf,v 1.3 2003/03/22 14:24:38 carpaski Exp $ +# # Directory to archive replaced configs archive-dir=/etc/config-archive +# Use rcs for storing files in the archive directory? +# (yes or no) +use-rcs=no + # Diff for display diff="diff -Nau %s %s" @@ -17,4 +21,8 @@ # Automerge files comprising only whitespace and/or comments # (yes or no) -replace-wscomments=yes +replace-wscomments=no + +# Automerge files that the user hasn't modified +# (yes or no) +replace-unmodified=no End of differences between /etc/dispatch-conf.conf and /etc/._cfg_dispatch-conf.conf ** How do I go about basing my decision now? Thanks, Jbanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
You're welcome! On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 05:02:21 -0700 (PDT) Joshua Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- brett holcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, I do it by using my editor (jstar) to show both files - new on top, old on bottom. I then go through and After all they are almost always updated by people and you definitely DO NOT want to update them with a new merge! Thanks for the response Brett. All the info that I can get is helpfull. JBanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
If you blindly say update it then etc-update sure will mess it up. Every update that etc-update has wanted to do has wanted to replace my /dev/... with /dev/BOOT and take out my stuff and that would sure hose the system. Other than running it through an editor manually I don't know of anyway to let etc-update do it. I suppose you could try an interactive update but for files like fstab I'll do it by hadn. On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:11:24 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:00:59AM -0400, brett holcomb wrote: Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you notice etc-update will remove all your changes. etc-update won't break /etc/fstab if you pay attention to what you're doing. The etc-update interface takes some getting used to... I made a mess the first time I tried it - so it's a good idea to save the files you're updating before you start. But once you get the hang of using it, it's a lot less trouble than doing it by hand. Nathan Meyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and >time for me. > > >On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: >>Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
*agrees with brett* if I haven't modified the file, I leave all the work up to etc-update :) it isn't much effort looking out for the 4 or 5 files you need to worry about. Ross. On Wednesday 17 September 2003 14:33, brett holcomb wrote: > If you blindly say update it then etc-update sure will > mess it up. Every update that etc-update has wanted to do > has wanted to replace my /dev/... with /dev/BOOT and take > out my stuff and that would sure hose the system. Other > than running it through an editor manually I don't know of > anyway to let etc-update do it. I suppose you could try > an interactive update but for files like fstab I'll do it > by hadn. > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:11:24 -0400 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:00:59AM -0400, brett holcomb > > > >wrote: > >> Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab > >>your > >> system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf > >> file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you > >> notice etc-update will remove all your changes. > > > >etc-update won't break /etc/fstab if you pay attention to > >what you're > >doing. > > > >The etc-update interface takes some getting used to... I > >made a mess > >the first time I tried it - so it's a good idea to save > >the files you're > >updating before you start. But once you get the hang of > >using it, it's > >a lot less trouble than doing it by hand. > > > >Nathan Meyers > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 > >> > >> Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and > >> >time for me. > >> > > >> >On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: > >> >>Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > >> > >> -- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > >-- > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Except for base-layout updates which seem to include /etc/hosts but even then it was only a few! On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:37:12 +0200 Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: *agrees with brett* if I haven't modified the file, I leave all the work up to etc-update :) it isn't much effort looking out for the 4 or 5 files you need to worry about. Ross. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:33:46AM -0400, brett holcomb wrote: > If you blindly say update it then etc-update sure will > mess it up. Every update that etc-update has wanted to do > has wanted to replace my /dev/... with /dev/BOOT and take > out my stuff and that would sure hose the system. Other > than running it through an editor manually I don't know of > anyway to let etc-update do it. I suppose you could try > an interactive update but for files like fstab I'll do it > by hadn. As I said, you've got to pay attention - it's not a no-brainer. etc-update lets you review each part of the patch and choose to do hand-patching on the pieces that need it. Even for files like /etc/fstab that require attention, it's less work (IMHO) than pulling both old and new versions into editors and eyeballing every one of the changes. Nathan Meyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:11:24 -0400 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:00:59AM -0400, brett holcomb > >wrote: > >>Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab > >>your > >>system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf > >>file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you > >>notice etc-update will remove all your changes. > > > >etc-update won't break /etc/fstab if you pay attention to > >what you're > >doing. > > > >The etc-update interface takes some getting used to... I > >made a mess > >the first time I tried it - so it's a good idea to save > >the files you're > >updating before you start. But once you get the hang of > >using it, it's > >a lot less trouble than doing it by hand. > > > >Nathan Meyers > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> > >>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 > >> Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and > >>>time for me. > >>> > >>> > >>>On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: > Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > >> > >> > >>-- > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > >> > >> > >> > > > >-- > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
Yes, I replied long ago saying that I now see how to use "etc-update" correctly. Thanks though. Maybe now you see why I started the other thread about "etc-update". I've actually been able to look through the various files that need updating and feel like I need to be a programmer to understand the diff's in allot of these files. I think that this is something that we should take to Gentoo DEV like many others have been saying all along. Only now do I understand this. JBanks --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:33:46AM -0400, brett holcomb wrote: > > If you blindly say update it then etc-update sure will > > mess it up. Every update that etc-update has wanted to do > > has wanted to replace my /dev/... with /dev/BOOT and take > > out my stuff and that would sure hose the system. Other > > than running it through an editor manually I don't know of > > anyway to let etc-update do it. I suppose you could try > > an interactive update but for files like fstab I'll do it > > by hadn. > > As I said, you've got to pay attention - it's not a no-brainer. > etc-update lets you review each part of the patch and choose to do > hand-patching on the pieces that need it. Even for files like /etc/fstab > that require attention, it's less work (IMHO) than pulling both old and > new versions into editors and eyeballing every one of the changes. > > Nathan Meyers > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:11:24 -0400 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:00:59AM -0400, brett holcomb > > >wrote: > > >>Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab > > >>your > > >>system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf > > >>file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you > > >>notice etc-update will remove all your changes. > > > > > >etc-update won't break /etc/fstab if you pay attention to > > >what you're > > >doing. > > > > > >The etc-update interface takes some getting used to... I > > >made a mess > > >the first time I tried it - so it's a good idea to save > > >the files you're > > >updating before you start. But once you get the hang of > > >using it, it's > > >a lot less trouble than doing it by hand. > > > > > >Nathan Meyers > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >> > > >>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 > > >> Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and > > >>>time for me. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: > > Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > > >> > > >> > > >>-- > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >-- > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > > > > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
There's a lot of talk that pops up in gentoo-dev regarding etc-update. For the time being, etc-update (or dispath-conf for a little protection) is about the best you'll get. Having said that, dispatch-conf *does* do automatic header and white-space merging and can also be set to auto-merge files that you haven't edited. Edit /etc/dispatch-conf.conf, run dispatch-conf, create the directory it tells you to and then run it again. It's about as (not!) easy to use as etc-update but will present you with much fewer changes. On Wednesday 17 September 2003 22:39, Joshua Banks wrote: > Yes, > > I replied long ago saying that I now see how to use "etc-update" correctly. > Thanks though. Maybe now you see why I started the other thread about > "etc-update". I've actually been able to look through the various files > that need updating and feel like I need to be a programmer to understand > the diff's in allot of these files. > > I think that this is something that we should take to Gentoo DEV like many > others have been saying all along. Only now do I understand this. > > JBanks > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:33:46AM -0400, brett holcomb wrote: > > > If you blindly say update it then etc-update sure will > > > mess it up. Every update that etc-update has wanted to do > > > has wanted to replace my /dev/... with /dev/BOOT and take > > > out my stuff and that would sure hose the system. Other > > > than running it through an editor manually I don't know of > > > anyway to let etc-update do it. I suppose you could try > > > an interactive update but for files like fstab I'll do it > > > by hadn. > > > > As I said, you've got to pay attention - it's not a no-brainer. > > etc-update lets you review each part of the patch and choose to do > > hand-patching on the pieces that need it. Even for files like /etc/fstab > > that require attention, it's less work (IMHO) than pulling both old and > > new versions into editors and eyeballing every one of the changes. > > > > Nathan Meyers > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:11:24 -0400 > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:00:59AM -0400, brett holcomb > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > >>Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab > > > >>your > > > >>system will break. Also, when you modify your make.conf > > > >>file you don't want it overwritten mindlessly. If you > > > >>notice etc-update will remove all your changes. > > > > > > > >etc-update won't break /etc/fstab if you pay attention to > > > >what you're > > > >doing. > > > > > > > >The etc-update interface takes some getting used to... I > > > >made a mess > > > >the first time I tried it - so it's a good idea to save > > > >the files you're > > > >updating before you start. But once you get the hang of > > > >using it, it's > > > >a lot less trouble than doing it by hand. > > > > > > > >Nathan Meyers > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:42:59 -0400 > > > >> > > > >> Ben Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>why not use etc-update? seems to save much hassle and > > > >>>time for me. > > > >>> > > > >>>On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 02:30, Joshua Banks wrote: > > > Come-on... No fish in the Gentoo pond..tonight > > > >> > > > >>-- > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > > > > >-- > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > > > -- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > -- > > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:24:22 +0200 "Gwendolyn van der Linden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [ rest snipped ] > I guess the above is true for several other files. Any file that is > hard/dangerous to merge automatically should NOT be in portage, but > provided as an example or template instead. In some cases one could > support optional configuration files that are read if they exist (if > [ -f /etc/blah.local ]; then source /etc/blah.local; ...). > > My two Eurocents. > Amen, sister! Your opinion is worth at leas $.10 US. A slight variant, very simple to implement, would be to have dangerous files (fstab, passwd, group, shadow, make.conf, etc.) stored as /etc/fstab.template, etc., with coded instructions for critical changes. etc-update could be modified to look for the specially coded instructions, automatically store the .template, and to warn you that action is required. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
On 17 Sep 2003, at 1:24 pm, Gwendolyn van der Linden wrote: brett holcomb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you use etc-update on files like /etc/fstab your system will break. Exactly. I would vote for keeping /etc/fstab.example in portage, and making the copying/editing part of the installation procedure (cp /etc/fstab.example /etc/fstab; nano -w /etc/fstab). I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if this was changed, were you to file it as a bug. I'm cross posting to gentoo-dev to see what they think. Stroller. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
--- Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a lot of talk that pops up in gentoo-dev regarding etc-update. For the > time being, etc-update (or dispath-conf for a little protection) is about the > best you'll get. Having said that, dispatch-conf *does* do automatic header > and white-space merging and can also be set to auto-merge files that you > haven't edited. Edit /etc/dispatch-conf.conf, run dispatch-conf, create the > directory it tells you to and then run it again. It's about as (not!) easy to > use as etc-update but will present you with much fewer changes. Thanks Jason. JBanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..
"brett holcomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you blindly say update it then etc-update sure will mess it up. on a unix-system mostly anything you do blindly, as root, will mess up your system. and, on a unix-system, with your eyes open, that mess can be fixed. > Every update that etc-update has wanted to do has wanted to replace > my /dev/... with /dev/BOOT and take out my stuff and that would sure > hose the system. Other than running it through an editor manually I > don't know of anyway to let etc-update do it. you select the option of keeping the original. in the rare event that I actually want a merger, I look at the original, merge the new file, and copy over my local changes. apart from ssh-setup, conf.d-files and make.conf, this happens _very_ rarely. > I suppose you could try an interactive update but for files like > fstab I'll do it by hadn. the interactive update is pretty decent actually, but I don't use it much myself. -- Terje -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] "etc-update" versus Manual update opinions..[Solved]
Feel pretty silly now :p "etc-update" Was staring me in the face the whole time begging me to use it...CORRECTLY...that is.. :D JBanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
