On Jan 30, 2008 8:33 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:arch-dev-public- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Dan McGee > > Verzonden: woensdag 30 januari 2008 15:08 > > Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development > > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and > > filesystem 2007.11-6 > > > > > > > > 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. > > As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't > change it, 99% > of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For the > 1% > of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in > backup.
Jan's is correct here, BUT /etc/issue has never been in the backup array as far as I can tell, so it is not a regression. Let's do the following: Sign off on this one so we can get it out the door and fix the REAL issues. New ISOs are coming soon, so we will need to bump this package anyway. We can add that then
