Re: Configuration by using local packages
* W. Borgert <email@example.com> [040428 00:21]:
> Maybe I didn't make my point clear: If I create a local
> (empty) package, that overwrites existing config files - of
> other packages! - by using cp in - it's own - postinst, this
> will just overwrite the config files, no matter what version
> they are etc. My conclusion: "relatively BAD".
That sounds like the same situation I have. Such local packages
are an abuse of the package managment system to get something
sone easily. And I want an langer amount of computers be configured
identically, as they shall behave identically and I want be able to
test and reconstruct things on any computer. As I want to have exactly
the same packages installed on each of them. Thus as the computers are
homogenous enough, I just ship the configuration (except some things
like lilo.conf, which I do not want to have around in plain-text too
often) in a single local package, that overrides everything found there.
If I as in the habit of forgetting to revert local changes, I'd even
install a cronjob comparing the files, sending me a diff and installing
the version in the package.
Or in less words: Such a local package is equivalent to a scp of your
config files to all computers involved. If thus is what you need it
is a nice way to get there. If it is not what you want, it is of course
bad, but so is almost anything one does not want.
Bernhard R. Link
 as far as this is possible with more or less different hardware. I
e.g. prefer to have the same graphics card in all of them to have
exactly one X-config to ship.
 and the same local packages like kernels and the like of course...
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.