> Martin > > At 22:49 10.02.2004 +0100, Martin Hejl wrote: > >It would (and hopefully will) be - but unless I completely misunderstood what > >they're working on, it doesn't adress all the aspects of updating packages (and I > >don't think it should either). > > > >So yes, the new config system should make things easier, but even after it has been > >adopted by the LEAF branches, we still won't have a system to keep a LEAF box up to > >date (please correct me if I'm mistaken). > > I guess one of the most important issues here is to split config and logic data. If > that can be achieved then theoretically we should be able to just replace the logic > while maintaining the configuration. However, this is not an easy task as the > packages come from so many different sources which do not have a common > configuration structure. Maybe this is the ultimate challenge for a community > project. > > Erich > Erich,
This isn't always a solution. Some programs change config structures from time to time, changing keywords or config file names. Having them split can give strange problems. Eric ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
