Hi Panard! > => added files are keeped, but modified ones are simply overwritten.
Stuart (the original webapp-config author) is currently too busy to join the discussion. But I talked briefly with him and he confirmed that we are using this type of behavior since portage does behave in the same way. > I think that droping user modifications to a webapp is quite grave. There is > some reasons to modifify a webapp : > - bug fixes > - add some features, often about security, like adding verification code for > registrations forms... > - disabling some features, to prevent clients to use them > - .... > > And if you want to upgrade to the latest version of this webapp, you will > lose > all these changes! > > I'm agree to the goal for after a webapp-config -U, your webapp is directly > functionnal. > But, I prefer waiting 3 minutes by doing etc-update and merging changes with > the new version, > than losing all my changes, temporaly block access to clients for security > reason, and redo all my changes if I found time and motivation to do my work > a second time.... > I mean, erasing user modification would put the webapp in a 'non-functionnal' > state, and for a long time.... that's not the goal of a webapp installation > tool. > > So why not use the CONFIG_PROTECT from make.conf to auto-protect server-owned > files? Yes, this is a reasonable solution to the problem. Currently we don't take the CONFIG_PROTECT variable into account. It wouldn't be too hard to do so. So one of the next versions will allow you to add your server dir in CONFIG_PROTECT and that will prevent webapp-config from overwriting anything in there. Regards, Gunnar -- Gunnar Wrobel Gentoo Developer __________________C_o_n_t_a_c_t__________________ Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.gunnarwrobel.de IRC: #gentoo-web at freenode.org _________________________________________________
pgpqCpjkZFNoU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
