On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:40 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
While I've commited most of the mandriva patches upstream, I still got a few ones left that I've been uncertain about and hasn't bothered with looking at yet:http://www.zarb.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/snapshot/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.4.1-fileconflicts.patch?root=rpm5distro&view=log (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151609)
The default value for these will be to resolve conflicts as last in. Put the patch under a vendor #ifdef if you wish.
http://www.zarb.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/snapshot/rpm/current/SOURCES/rpm-4.4.4-rpmqv-ghost.patch?root=rpm5distro&view=log (https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=19392)
If you want both a --ghost enabler as well as a --noghost disabler, go for it.
However, what works best for rpm (in my experience) is enabled functionality
with a disabler. Opt-in behavior for new functionality takes many more years to be used, might as well have not done the implementation at all.However, if both enabler/disabler options have to be added everywhere, its
gonna be a bit of a mess, and likely will require automation throughpopt for bit field set/clr (which likely needs doing somewhen for other reasons).
But as long as the options are not displayed in --help or documented in rpm.8
noone will really care.
Reading bugzilla entries, both suggests that these issues has been fixed upstream already, is this the case? Is there no longer any sense to thesepatches?
The disagreement over what the default value for file conflicts has been going on since RHEL4. Nothing has changed. Some want full stop failure exit, others are okay with "best effort" continuing. And there is only one default behavior choice possible. I've not seen the --ghost enabler patch before now. 73 de Jeff
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
