On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 06:49:07PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> /proc, though...... that one might more awkward to protect. Those are >> nominally "files". Has anyone reviewed trying to protect /proc, or in >> the case I mentioned /var/named/chroot/proc, from misapplied patches? > > I don't think it's worth adding a special-case for that. > > Again, while your /var/named/chroot/proc directory might be versioned > (if you're versioning the chroot jail in SVN), any files or directories > within it will be unversioned, and thus ignored by 'svn patch'. Unless > you add files from the mounted proc file system to svn. And that is a > very stupid thing to do.
I think that you're right it's not worth adding a special case: it is a case where special care with svn:ignore" is required to avoid surprises and confusion, and where you need to pay attention to "svn import" options. And while I like to think that *I'm* not that stupid, I know plenty of inexperienced admins who are due for tragic errors, such as doing an "svn import" on /var/named/chroot and not paying attention.
