On Jan 30, 2008 9:08 AM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008 3:59 AM, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/1/30, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > These two have been bumped because apparently some people still had > > > problems due to an edge case with the generation of pacnew files I > > > bumped both the package and the md5sum on profile in order to get > > > around edge cases with no pacnew files > > > > > > bash was a version bump too mainly to move the man pages > > > > > > filesystem changes: > > > Setup for FHS compliant man pages - FS#8839 > > > Claim ownership of /etc/profile from bash - FS#4766 > > > Remove LESSCHARSET env var from /etc/profile - FS#8877 > > > > > > bash changes: > > > Update patch level to 033 > > > Remove /etc/profile from package. Move bashisms to > > > /etc/profile.bash - FS#4766 > > > > > > /etc/profile was also largely revamped. Please comment on the changes > > > there if you'd like. > > > > > > I'd like to get these into core as soon as possible > > > > > > > > > > http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html > > Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? > > Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user? > > I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there > for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users > would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to > me.
+1
