Re: Just want some comments or maybe feature request

(Jun 25 2005 16:05) Denis Solovyov wrote:
> 
> There is a discussion in tsl-discuss about swup overwriting existing but
> not modified config files:
> http://lists.trustix.org/pipermail/tsl-discuss/2005-June/014662.html
> and the whole thread.

You should read the answers from Vidar Tyldum in the thread you post
link to.

> I  think  such  behavoiur  is not proper and not prospective. I think it
> should  be  better if the updater created *.rpmnew for config files even
> if  they  were  unmodified  since  previous  update  or  even  since TSL
> installation. Maybe as an option (--force-rpmnew, for example).

First off the thread is based upon the user not understanding rpm
internals. The thing he have found is correct behaviour and not
something bad. Of course a file will be replaced if it isn't different
from what it originally was. It's the only way to be certain things are
consistent.

If a config file is _different_ from what it was when it was installed,
it will not be changed. It's the correct way of doing this and is done
by RPM.
 
> Want to get comments and opinions of swup team.

SWUP does not handle internal package things at all. SWUP does not and
should not care what a package does on the system. SWUP only cares if
the package is signed by one of the allowed GPG keys.

The package decides what files are treated as config files and what
files are not. If the package maintainer chooses to, he can make every
file in a package a config file, and thus force .rpmnew extension. It
would not be wise but it's certainly possible.

So SWUP should not have been part of the discussion in the first place.


:)



c


-- 
Christian H. Toldnes
Trustix Developer