On 3/21/11 6:27 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 03/21/11 06:06 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
On 03/21/11 05:15 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
Bart and I thought it best that only editable files could participate
in this
scheme, hence tying it to preserve since that's what is used to
indicate that a
file is editable. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
So why do you need any preserve="custom-*" tag at all and not just
allow any
editable file to be replaced by a site package? If the package creator
declared it editable, they gave permission for the site to modify - why
have different permission to modify with vi vs. pkg?
It was believed that it shouldn't be applied to all editable files --
just those editable files that packages had also explicitly allowed
custom delivery for.
This was done because there are some editable files for which delivering
a custom version is not appropriate, such as the device files in /etc,
like /etc/minor_perm, and so on.
I wondered the same thing as Alan. Perhaps what this suggests is that
all preserve=true files could be overridden by default, and there's a
new way to mark the "special" files? I expect they'll be the exception
rather than the rule, so it might be sensible to switch the default around.
(I agree the direction makes a lot of sense. This is a detail.)
liane
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
