Stupid end-user tricks: darcs for /etc and /boot

[Alexander Skwar]

gonzlobo wrote:
> I know how etc-update works (I used Gentoo for a year). Upon emerging 
> *some* packages

Nope. *All* packages which store files in "configuration directories".
Those are, by default:

	/etc /usr/kde/3.5/env /usr/kde/3.5/share/config
	/usr/kde/3.5/shutdown /usr/share/X11/xkb /usr/share/config

But not in

	/etc/env.d /etc/eselect/compiler /etc/gconf /etc/revdep-rebuild
	/etc/terminfo /etc/texmf/web2c

This list can be changed by the user and by the system.

> it prompts the user to view changes to important files 

Well, again not quite true. Not just to "important" files, but to
*all* files stored in one of the "CONFIG_PROTECT" (the 1st list)
directories.

> (fstab being one). If the user chooses the worng config file his system 
> is hosed until he modifies the offending file.

Well - that's *not* the fault of etc-update, though! It's also
not the fault of fdisk for erasing your partitions when you'd
do "o<enter>w<enter>". Also "dd" isn't "dangerous", just because
you could do "dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/hda".

> I got tired of pouring over intimate details of every single /etc file 
> (and paying for it when I chose the wrong options). It's that simple,

Now, *that's* a valid complaint. But that complaint doesn't have anything
to do with etc-update anymore. It's you who got tired and made wrong
choices. There's just so much that Gentoo/etc-update can do about it.
etc-update merges some "trivial" (I've got no idea what that is to
be hones) changes automatically. What should it be doing with other
changes?

> I 
> punted Gentoo because of etc-update.

I believe you. But how else should this be done? Really, I'd
be interested! When a package gets installed/updated and
wants to put a file in one of the configuration directories
which already exists - what should happen then? I agree with
the Gentoo way, that, by default, configuration files should
*NOT* be automatically overwritten. Because of that, the user
has to be made aware somehow about the fact, that there are
changes which have to somehow "merged" into the system.

How should this be done, in your opinion?

I do agree, that more "trivial" changes should be automatically
handled. Eg. I upgraded Apache. This results in a new /etc/apache2/modules.d/00_apache_manual.conf,
as the version number of Apache has changed and as there's the
following line in the 00_apache_manual.conf file:

	<Directory "/usr/share/doc/apache-2.0.55-r1/manual">

If the version number changes, this line will change and etc-update
will show that file. Now, as far as I'm concerned, etc-update
shouldn't bother me with asking if it's okay to update the file,
if the only change is the version number.

But thanks for replying. Your very first sentence in your reply
show, why I called your first post FUD and would also call this
post to be "FUD-ish". And your 2nd sentence confirm me in this
understanding - as I wrote, it's not the fault of etc-update if
the user "by accident" (yeah, right...) enters "-5". Pardon me,
but something like this just doesn't usually happen "by accident".

I'd also like to thank you for yet another reason - your new
post clearly showed, that it's not etc-update's fault.

> No FUD.

Well...

Alexander Skwar
-- 
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.