On Monday 28 November 2005 07:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Monday 28 November 2005 07:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > On Monday 28 November 2005 04:15, Philip Dillon-Thiselton wrote: > >> >> Georg Grabler wrote: > >> >> > On Monday 28 November 2005 10:20, Philip Dillon-Thiselton wrote: > >> >> >>Well, fair enough but as I already said, he could update it as > >> > >> often > >> > >> >> as he likes if it was pkg'ed separately. I think most people have > >> > >> to do the .pacnew tango when they update their initscripts and > >> that's frustrating when the scripts themselves have not changed at > >> all. > >> > >> >> > I didn't see a reason at all to update to the .pacnew files all > >> > >> the > >> > >> >> time. > >> >> > >> >> > Some day i feel like looking over the files i do... sometimes > >> > >> there > >> > >> >> are good changes in which i adobt, like the new network profiles > >> > >> (thanks in this case again for this great update). > >> > >> >> Well, fair enough but if you are not running, for example, the > >> > >> latest rc.sysinit then what is the point of updating initscripts at > >> all?! > >> > >> >> > I dont feel threatened to update all my files everytime i see > >> > >> there > >> > >> >> has been addad a .pacnew file, since this updates won't corrupt the > >> > >> system. > >> > >> >> > Regards, > >> >> > Grabler Georg > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > arch mailing list > >> >> > arch@archlinux.org > >> >> > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> arch mailing list > >> >> arch@archlinux.org > >> >> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > >> > > >> > How hard would it be to enable some sort of semi auto updater to the > >> > >> config files kind of like what Gentoo does. The updater lets you > >> know that there are updates available to the config files and lets > >> you parse though the file and add changes. Maybe even a little more > >> > >> > refined/better than the Gentoo one; maybe something that lets you > >> > >> know there is a change, automagically make changes to the specific > >> locations in the file and gets your approval. This way, only NEW > >> additions are added and your settings are left alone. > >> > >> > Thoughts??? > >> > > >> > Joe > >> > >> UG !! > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> arch mailing list > >> arch@archlinux.org > >> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > > > Was that an UGH!!!! NO WAY... Or a U Go man :) > > > > It should be as simple as this... > > > > comm original_file updated_file -3 > diff_ ; cat diff_ >> original_file > > ; rm diff_ > > > > I tested this on a simple text file I had and it seemed to work ok... > > > > Joe > > Doable...yes certainly. > > Desirable....UGH !! > > i.e......Arch philosophy was/is to "return" control to the user...This > automagical revision of conf files has been resisted, as a rule, from the > beginning. > > > Very best regards; > > Bob Finch > > > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > arch@archlinux.org > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
Well, the user would still have control whether or not to implement the change, but I thought it would be simpler to have a tool that would initiate it for you so you didn't have to manually parse through the .pacnew files and copy important changes to existing files by hand. To me, that would be more of a "Keep it simple ....." sort of thing. Linux administration can, for the most part, be automated using scripts. I feel, personally, to make use of that automation would be really helpfull and simple for the end user. However, leave that totally up to the end user. Pacman would still spit out .pacnew files, but if the user opts to initiate a file config updater script, that could be used as well. Just a thought... Thanks!!! Joe _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
