Re: apkg -u, the deception?

Hi Erich;

Am Donnerstag, 15. Oktober 2015, 19:16:19 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
> 
> Am 15.10.2015 um 18:41 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> > Hi Erich;
> 
> ..
> 
> > No; we only need the new package with the AC1 and the AC', which is in
> > configdb.lrp.
> > If you call apkg -u it will detect the changed file and it will offer you
> > to either Keep your version, Show differences, Edit a merge file or to go
> > with the new version.
> 
> How can you merge if you don't have a difference

> > I've checked that it even works, if you replace the original package with
> > the new version on /mnt.
> 
> Yes, that works and it corresponds to
> 
> - AC, AC1 and AC' are available, because
> from AC and AC' we can calculate D and apply it to AC1

In my tests D was calculated from AC1 and AC'.
Have you tested or did I something wrong when testing?

> In my previous mail there was a typo in the condition above
> 
> > Pls test.
> > 
> > So what upgrade can do is to copy the package to /mnt and run apkg -u
> > afterwards from /mnt. If there are changes, the user can decide how to
> > proceed.
> 
> This was the first test I did and I did not like it. It is noisy like
> hell. 

I'm running apkg -u very often and find it very convenient :)

> And most importantly (at least to me) is _the user should not need
> to intervene_. This is because the average user has either forgotten the
> changes or applied them using a web interface of some sort.
> 
> For example, if you use webconf to configure /etc/network/interfaces
> then the generated file will look a lot different from the one included
> in the distribution. The user may never have seen the original, how
> could he make an intelligent choice?

In that case webconf has to be fixed IMHO.

> Blindly just use the old configuration has it's problems, as seen
> before, even calculating the difference and applying it to the new
> config file may be error prone, but probably a lot safer than human
> intervention.
> 
> > There has been introduced a safety feature, that every upgrade needs a
> > response (y/n) , even it doesn't touch any config etc..., but if changes
> > in the config are detected, you'll be  offered with the menu to deal with
> > the changes.
> I messed around with apkg -u and looked at the implementation of
> apkg.merge and apkg.mergefile. These two scripts do nothing more than
> what 'diff -r' and 'patch' would do, probably just a lot slower.
> 
> I would like to enable these two applets in busybox and I have done so
> in my local branch. Tests are encouraging. It could make the scripts a
> lot easier and more consistent than an implementation in bash. Any
> objections to enhance busybox?

Ok; this is an IMHO a somewhat different/additional  issue.
You may either merge maint into next or pu (proposed updates) and add your 
changes there so we can test.
Or you make a new (remote) branch with your changes so we can test.

kp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------