On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:22:11PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Comments both on the nature and the specifics of the specification > would be welcomed. In particular, I'd like to know if people think > we're mandating the appropriate degree of specificity and whether we're > providing sufficient generality to avoid overly restricting innovation.
I think this is overly restrictive, actually. It's a good idea to specify which files and directories will be matched by CONFIG_PROTECT and _MASK, since that's something ebuilds end up using, but it may be better to leave the details on how they will be protected up to the package manager (which can in turn make it configurable for the user). For one example of what a package manager, if configured to do so, should in my opinion be allowed to do: automatically remove unmodified and abandoned configuration files on updates. (This is not the same as setting CONFIG_PROTECT=-*.) For another, a package manager, if configured to do so, should in my opinion be allowed to store the config files on a (possibly local) cvs/svn server in addition to the real filesystem, avoiding ._cfg* files altogether. Specifying how they will be protected prevents things like this. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
