Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote: Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files when making quickpkg files? Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might be a good reason not to. If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to include everything I could. What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type user? The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works. emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority? You can always rename them to name.bak if you think they might get nuked. Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote: Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files when making quickpkg files? Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might be a good reason not to. If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to include everything I could. What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type user? The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works. emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority? You can always rename them to name.bak if you think they might get nuked. Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals Thanks Alan. That confirms what I was thinking. My comment about things getting stolen is that I might burn them to DVD for safe keeping in which case anyone can walk off with the DVD. I'm not overly worried about that and it's far and away less of an issue than getting the machine back to a running state. Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:37:00 Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote: Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files when making quickpkg files? Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might be a good reason not to. If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to include everything I could. What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type user? The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works. emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority? You can always rename them to name.bak if you think they might get nuked. Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals Thanks Alan. That confirms what I was thinking. My comment about things getting stolen is that I might burn them to DVD for safe keeping in which case anyone can walk off with the DVD. I'm not overly worried about that and it's far and away less of an issue than getting the machine back to a running state. OK, I see. As long as you know which configs have password in them and take precautions, you should be OK. For the truly paranoid (and there will be someone who is validly so) another option is to store /etc in a remote SVN instance that is secured, and not store configs with the quickpkgs -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:37:00 Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote: Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files when making quickpkg files? Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might be a good reason not to. If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to include everything I could. What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type user? The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works. emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority? You can always rename them to name.bak if you think they might get nuked. Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals Thanks Alan. That confirms what I was thinking. My comment about things getting stolen is that I might burn them to DVD for safe keeping in which case anyone can walk off with the DVD. I'm not overly worried about that and it's far and away less of an issue than getting the machine back to a running state. OK, I see. As long as you know which configs have password in them and take precautions, you should be OK. For the truly paranoid (and there will be someone who is validly so) another option is to store /etc in a remote SVN instance that is secured, and not store configs with the quickpkgs Thanks. Like I said originally I'm not worried about it but at least you understood why I asked. One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:37:00 Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote: Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files when making quickpkg files? Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might be a good reason not to. If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to include everything I could. What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type user? The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works. emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority? You can always rename them to name.bak if you think they might get nuked. Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals Thanks Alan. That confirms what I was thinking. My comment about things getting stolen is that I might burn them to DVD for safe keeping in which case anyone can walk off with the DVD. I'm not overly worried about that and it's far and away less of an issue than getting the machine back to a running state. OK, I see. As long as you know which configs have password in them and take precautions, you should be OK. For the truly paranoid (and there will be someone who is validly so) another option is to store /etc in a remote SVN instance that is secured, and not store configs with the quickpkgs Thanks. Like I said originally I'm not worried about it but at least you understood why I asked. One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you.
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:57 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? You can't, because buildpkg builds the package before installation (it actually builds the package and then installs from it) so it only contains the default configs. That shouldn't be an issue if you backup /etc regularly. -- Neil Bothwick Copy from another: plagiarism. Copy from many: research. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ I am. Not sure Mark is ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Friday 12 February 2010 00:56:04 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ I am. Not sure Mark is ;) I am too. At least I am now. (I had to refresh the man page cache in my head first) :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command quickpkg --include-configs says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I Alan) were talking about. On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the FEATURES=buildpkg (which is what I think Neil is speaking about) gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't. If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-) - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command quickpkg --include-configs says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I Alan) were talking about. On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the FEATURES=buildpkg (which is what I think Neil is speaking about) gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't. If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-) - Mark when you use quickpkg it package up all the files belonging to the package as they are installed in your system. If you edited the configs (or any other file) the edited version ends in the tarball. with buildpkg the package is created before the files are copied into the filesystem. Config files included in the tarball are 'virgin'. buildpkg is 'cleaner' because you get everything as it is installed. If you want to save your configs - well, regular backups of /etc is always a smart choice.
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Alan McKinnonalan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command quickpkg --include-configs says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I Alan) were talking about. On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the FEATURES=buildpkg (which is what I think Neil is speaking about) gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't. If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-) - Mark This is how I understand it. If you use buildpkg with emerge, you get the original configs from the source tarball. If you use quickpkg, then you get the config files YOU created. If I understand this correctly, you can remember it this way as well. Doing it during the emerge gives you what emerge produces. Doing it with quickpkg gives you what you produced. All that and I didn't confuse myself. So, I'm probably wrong in how I understand it. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Dale wrote: chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Alan McKinnonalan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right way automatically? - Mark when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you. Just checking something: We are all aware of the difference between emerge --buildpkg and quickpkg right/ -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command quickpkg --include-configs says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I Alan) were talking about. On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the FEATURES=buildpkg (which is what I think Neil is speaking about) gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't. If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-) - Mark This is how I understand it. If you use buildpkg with emerge, you get the original configs from the source tarball. If you use quickpkg, then you get the config files YOU created. If I understand this correctly, you can remember it this way as well. Doing it during the emerge gives you what emerge produces. Doing it with quickpkg gives you what you produced. All that and I didn't confuse myself. So, I'm probably wrong in how I understand it. lol Dale :-) :-) no, this is entirely correct.
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Dale wrote: SNIP This is how I understand it. If you use buildpkg with emerge, you get the original configs from the source tarball. If you use quickpkg, then you get the config files YOU created. If I understand this correctly, you can remember it this way as well. Doing it during the emerge gives you what emerge produces. Doing it with quickpkg gives you what you produced. All that and I didn't confuse myself. So, I'm probably wrong in how I understand it. lol Dale :-) :-) no, this is entirely correct. From what I've seen last night and today I do not think this is correct. quickpkg =NAME produces a binary package with NO config files included. You have to use quickpkg --include-configs =NAME to get the configs, at least from what I can see from the messages it produces when it runs. There is another option to limit the configs to only the unedited ones. - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:39:48 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command quickpkg --include-configs says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I Alan) were talking about. On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the FEATURES=buildpkg (which is what I think Neil is speaking about) gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't. I was talking about the difference between quickpkg and buildpkg in response to your statement One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. So, yes, I was aware of the difference, and the reason why they behave differently. Buildpkg has to work with the files before they are installed, otherwise --buildpkgonly wouldn't work. If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-) What's wrong with a cron job to tar up /etc once per day? There are more sophisticated solutions, but tar does the job and can save you much grief. -- Neil Bothwick Hello, this is an extension to the famous signature virus, called spymail. Could you please copy me into your signature and send back what you were doing last night between 10pm and 3am? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Dale wrote: SNIP This is how I understand it. If you use buildpkg with emerge, you get the original configs from the source tarball. If you use quickpkg, then you get the config files YOU created. If I understand this correctly, you can remember it this way as well. Doing it during the emerge gives you what emerge produces. Doing it with quickpkg gives you what you produced. All that and I didn't confuse myself. So, I'm probably wrong in how I understand it. lol Dale :-) :-) no, this is entirely correct. From what I've seen last night and today I do not think this is correct. quickpkg =NAME produces a binary package with NO config files included. You have to use quickpkg --include-configs =NAME to get the configs, at least from what I can see from the messages it produces when it runs. There is another option to limit the configs to only the unedited ones. - Mark You do have to add that option but that was already mentioned. I should have added it for clarity tho. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?
chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:39:48 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command quickpkg --include-configs says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I Alan) were talking about. On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the FEATURES=buildpkg (which is what I think Neil is speaking about) gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't. I was talking about the difference between quickpkg and buildpkg in response to your statement One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs. I'm not sure that is doable actually. If you use buildpkg, there is no config except the virgin one that comes from the tarball. From my understanding, emerge builds the package, saves a copy to /usr/portage/All then installs the package to where ever it goes, presumably /. I think I see what you mean but I don't think there is anything to be saved since it is not installed when it is done. Someone correct me if I am wrong here. Dale :-) :-)
