Re: ucf: Diversion of /u/b/ucf by etcgit
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:09:52PM +0000, Jörg Sommer wrote:
> >> the configuration files modified by the administrator are stored. The
> >> former branch is updated when ucf or apt-get is run. Then these
> > How is the former branch updated with the new version, since you
> > are using UCF_FORCE_CONFFOLD? The documented effect is to retain
> > whatever was on the file system, no matter what.
> Therefore, I use the wrapper around ucf. The postinst script calls
> ucf <New File> <Destination>
> So I've the new file and know where it should go. I can update the file
> in the branch with the original files and then merge this branch with the
> local configuration branch and install this result underneath /etc. Then
> the real ucf can update it's database, but it should not touch the file
> I've put underneath /etc. It's
> save_original
> merge_with_current
> export UCF_FORCE_CONFFOLD=1
> ucf.etcgit "$@"
So this will leave the ucf db with a horribly incorrect view of the current
state of the config file, and if the user ever removes etcgit, there'll be
a real mess.
> > Anything else should be reflected in a conflicts relationship
> > between ucf and etckeeper, not a diversion, since the diversion does
> > not actually maintain the functionality of ucf.
> Interesting idea. Etcgit could replace ucf. I'll think about it.
As a maintainer of packages that depend on ucf, I think that would be a
reason to conflict with etcgit in order to spare users the pain of the issue
above.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: