[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Richards) writes:
Of course, what you *really* want is to do a 3-way merge involving
the new install config file, the previous install config file, and
the actual config file that the user has determined they want. There
is nothing fundamentally difficult in
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 06:06, Steven Elling wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 13:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recently, i re-emerged 'baselayout',
which caused a set of candidates to be created for 'etc-update'.
most were innocuous or easily understood,
but one was for /etc/fstab , which seems
On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 06:10, Steven Elling wrote:
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 02:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 06 February 2004 09:14, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Basically muttrc is not of the same class as passwd, fstab and group. If
you're up to it, just move
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 02:32, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Friday 06 February 2004 09:14, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Basically muttrc is not of the same class as passwd, fstab and group. If
you're up to it, just move the three to somewhere else and reboot. After
that I
On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 20:06, Steven Elling wrote:
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 13:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recently, i re-emerged 'baselayout',
which caused a set of candidates to be created for 'etc-update'.
most were innocuous or easily understood,
but one was for /etc/fstab , which seems
Stroller wrote:
Hmmmn... I guess this is a matter of personal taste. I find a .example
file right next to the one I'm editing SO useful.
For fun, cd /etc, for i in ... cp $i ${i}.example. {shudder}
They come in handy in some cases, but they'd come in just as handy in
/usr/share/doc and they'd
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Basically muttrc is not of the same class as passwd, fstab and group. If
you're up to it, just move the three to somewhere else and reboot. After
that I think you can appreciate that one must not be enabled to
overwrite them.
Some people run Linux because they don't like
On 2004-02-06, Thomas de Grenier de Latour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:32:54 +0100
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe my wording was a bit too harsh. But I cannot see the point of
offering the user the option of replacing his passwd/fstab/group with
one that
Phil Richards wrote:
On 2004-02-06, I wrote:
Of course, what you *really* want is to do a 3-way merge involving
the new install config file, the previous install config file, and
the actual config file that the user has determined they want.
And, I should have added, that cfg-update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 05 February 2004 09:13, Drake Wyrm wrote:
I have to disagree completely. This is exactly why we use
CONFIG_PROTECT and etc-update. Packages *should* install a default,
but it shouldn't be called config-file.example. Documentation, such
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:48:35AM +0100, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul de Vrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 05 February 2004 09:13, Drake Wyrm wrote:
I have to disagree completely. This is exactly why we use
CONFIG_PROTECT and etc-update. Packages *should* install a default,
but it
On Feb 5, 2004, at 8:13 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
The Installation documentation could be changed to say copy edit
your fstab like so: cp /etc/fstab.example /etc/fstab nano -w
/etc/fstab` and users would have the benefit of a back-up of the
original should they ever b0rk theirs up.
I have to
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:33:01PM +, in [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stroller [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 5, 2004, at 8:13 am, Drake Wyrm wrote:
The Installation documentation could be changed to say copy edit
your fstab like so: cp /etc/fstab.example /etc/fstab nano -w
/etc/fstab` and
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:33:01PM +, Stroller wrote:
But as Paul says, /etc/fstab can make your system unbootable
Hmm, I don't think this is true - the kernel pays no attention to
/etc/fstab when mounting the root filesystem (obviously - / isn't
mounted), so the worst that can happen is
Interactively merge the two and you should be all set.
Don.
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 02:48:25PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recently, i re-emerged 'baselayout',
which caused a set of candidates to be created for 'etc-update'.
most were innocuous or easily understood,
but one was for
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 20:51, Don Seiler wrote:
Interactively merge the two and you should be all set.
The problem is that this file should not need to change at all. The baselayout
ebuild should be smart enough to see that /etc/fstab must not be changed
(same as passwd and group)
Paul
040204 Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 20:51, Don Seiler wrote:
Interactively merge the two and you should be all set.
The problem is that this file should not need to change at all.
The baselayout ebuild should be smart enough
to see that /etc/fstab must not be changed
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 04:09 pm, Stroller wrote:
I recall a while back there were some changes that were necessary to be
merged into fstab; in fact mine contains the following 3 lines:
# added by baselayout-1.8.6.8-r1 - 5/7/2003
# NOTE: The next line is critical for boot!
none
18 matches
Mail list logo
