Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes: > On 29/07/2023 14:54, Arsen Arsenović wrote: >> Again, it shouldn't be able to do that. Please check CONFIG_PROTECT >> using: portageq envvar CONFIG_PROTECT >> It should, normally, contain /etc, set by profiles/base/make.defaults. > > And here is the root of the mis-understanding between us. And also why Dovecot > does it right, and Postfix does it wrong. > > WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO USE DISPATCH-CONF? (Or in my case, etc-update.) > > The point is I don't (have to) care whether dovecot.conf is updated or not. I > never change it from the distro defaults, so it never offers me etc-update, > and > it never does any damage. > > But I DO have to care about postfix/main.cf. This makes the fundamental > blunder > of mixing distro defaults and local config in the SAME FILE. So yes it does > offer me etc-update. But if I MISS THAT, I've just trashed my local config and > have to rebuild it.
If portage trashes the local file, something went wrong. That is the only thing that I'm trying to get to the bottom of in this thread. Application design is irrelevant to that. You say that the opportunity to etc-update is offered? If so, portage worked as it should and I'm satisfied, but I'm still confused about how the contents got trashed. > At the end of the day, if you can't keep distro and local config separate, > that's a fault of the upstream application. etc-update and dispatch-conf are > gentoo's way of working round the breakage. IFF you use dovecot/local.conf, > it's a sign of good design by the upstream application, and etc-update or > dispatch-conf are completely UNNECESSARY. > > Cheers, > Wol -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
