Phil Pennock wrote: > Charles Polisher wrote: > > There's an interesting blog post on this - > > http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/sysadmin/WhyNotEtckeeper?showcomments > > which observes that with etckeeper & friends you'll be fighting > > your package management system. Some good point/counterpoint in > > the comments, too. > > If your package management system insists on owning all files in /etc/ > and complaining if you choose to change the state of some them by > rolling back a change, then your package management system is broken. > > It's acceptable for package management to create new files in /etc/ on > first install but if it wants to own the ongoing state then it's flawed.
Agreed -- Recent "yum update" mysteriously un-installed /etc/httpd/conf.d/cacti.conf. Still haven't run it to ground. Not the expected behavior. > There are obvious exceptions; eg, /etc/alternatives/ on Debian, but as > long as your revision control layer lets you snapshots changes made > in-place instead of treating /etc/ as a read-only checkout, you're good. > > Since etckeeper hooks _into_ apt, yum, etc, I'm not seeing a problem > here. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
