On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 01:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Either %config or %config(noreplace) can cause problems during update.
Neither one is completely safe with regard to breaking a program at
runtime. It can be necessary to switch from %config(noreplace) to %config,
or vice versa, in
On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:37:41 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 01:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Either %config or %config(noreplace) can cause problems during update.
Neither one is completely safe with regard to breaking a program at
runtime. It can be necessary to
On 04.08.2015 19:38, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:39 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
Btw, rpmlint does not override Fedora's packaging guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files
Not override, but good when rpmlint follows on packaging
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:39 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
If not marking the files below /etc as %config, any update would overwrite
them.
Marking them as %config signals RPM to handle the update more gracefully.
Yes, true. It will handle the update more gracefully, however it does
not
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 09:09:43 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
I trying to express my opinion about my understanding 'configuration
files' meaning.
Of course.
In my opinion that this type of files can be classified as pre-defined
settings files, not configuration files. In any case, it looks that we
On 02.08.2015 23:15, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 16:29:06 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file?
Certainly. It's a cheap way to set a program's runtime configuration
instead of implementing a full config file loader/parser.
My
On 02.08.2015 23:58, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 2 August 2015 at 22:57, Jonathan Underwood
jonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 August 2015 at 15:29, Marcin Haba marcin.h...@bacula.pl wrote:
My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
purpose by design, because
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:22:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly with old
config files and new config files
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:38 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:22:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly
Am 03.08.2015 um 20:15 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
And %config(noreplace) is not guaranteed to be the better choice anyway.
Who guarantees that the updated software still works flawlessly with old
config files and new config files created as .rpmnew? Testing for all such
changes is not a trivial
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:48:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
* as long the config fiel is untouched it will be overwritten
and in sync with the package due updates
Same when marking as %config. Same for all ordinary files.
yes, but not relevant
Really? Ordinary files in /etc don't
Hello Michael,
W dniu 03.08.2015 o 13:09, Michael Schwendt pisze:
In my opinion that this type of files can be classified as pre-defined
settings files, not configuration files. In any case, it looks that we
have different understanding configuration files and it causes cross
over our
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:02:26 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
The only one message that I am trying to say in this point is:
configuration files for me should be designed to configure/modify by
administrator or directly by application.
A moot point, too.
First of all, if not installing prebuilt RPM
Hello Michael,
On 03.08.2015 20:15, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:02:26 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
The only one message that I am trying to say in this point is:
configuration files for me should be designed to configure/modify by
administrator or directly by application.
On 08/02/2015 08:39 AM, Marcin Haba wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh
Because ossim.sh
Hello,
I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh
Because ossim.sh is not configuration file but shell script (as
On 02.08.2015 08:54, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/02/2015 08:39 AM, Marcin Haba wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
ossim-data.x86_64: W:
On 02.08.2015 12:34, Michael Schwendt wrote:
My question is: what is valid answer for this case?
The explanation is given by rpmlint -i ….
Hello,
Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location. Please look:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 08:39:28 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to make informal review following feature request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353
One from warnings returned by rpmlint is:
ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:24:00 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
The explanation is given by rpmlint -i ….
Hello,
Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location.
Well, it is the contents of the file that matter. The
On 02.08.2015 14:48, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:24:00 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
The explanation is given by rpmlint -i ….
Hello,
Not really. I read output from rpmlint and I am not sure if it is
unambiguous for shell scripts placed in /etc location.
Well, it is the
On 2 August 2015 at 15:29, Marcin Haba marcin.h...@bacula.pl wrote:
My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something
(application, service, single program, script...whatever). If they are
dedicated only for
On 2 August 2015 at 22:57, Jonathan Underwood
jonathan.underw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 August 2015 at 15:29, Marcin Haba marcin.h...@bacula.pl wrote:
My image of configuration files is that they are files for read/write
purpose by design, because they enables _configure_ something
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 16:29:06 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
A) if a shell script can be treated as configuration file?
Certainly. It's a cheap way to set a program's runtime configuration
instead of implementing a full config file loader/parser.
My image of configuration files is that they
24 matches
Mail list logo
