4 Jun
2019
4 Jun
'19
3:53 p.m.
Hello,
On Jun 4 13:30 Alberto Planas Dominguez wrote (excerpt):
On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:23:56 PM CEST Johannes
Meixner wrote:
I think that is already provided by RPM
when files are marked as '%config(noreplace)'.
I do not see a substantial functional difference between
having the default config files in a separated directory
from using a special file name extension for that.
Of course a separated directory looks better/cleaner but
my point is that I think the actual problem is not solved.
Furthermore with a snapshot of the system before an update
one has a generic way to compare the whole updated system
with its state before the update so that one does not need
to hope and pray for things like RPM '%config(noreplace)'
or whatever other stuff to be done right in all cases.
I think it is a separated topic how to autmatically combine
various configuration snippets in various config files
for the configuration of one single service/application.
Offhandedly it looks to me as if it could become in the end
"yet another RFC 1925 items (5) and (6) attempt"
but I could be wrong because I am not an expert in this area.
Regardless what the outcome is, all is good as long as
Linux distributors together with upstream projects agree
on something that is doable and maintainable in practice.
Kind Regards
Johannes Meixner
--
SUSE LINUX GmbH - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org
I do not see how the actual issue could be solved
by storing config files at a different location.
As I can see there is a improvement. The goal is separate
the default configuration file (provided by the RPM,
that maybe is a direct reflect of the one that the developer
provides) from the changes that the user have locally
in the machine.