From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [130.89.2.14] (helo=mx.utwente.nl) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lpars-0000oQ-K1 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:19:02 +0200 Received: from Powerbook-3.local (vpn006010.vpn.utwente.nl [130.89.6.10]) by mx.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n334GKIS008748; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:16:21 +0200 Message-ID: <49D58D93.20803@student.utwente.nl> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:16:19 +0200 From: Koen Kooi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090328 Shredder/3.0b3pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org References: <6b7bf6e9-f3cb-4460-b1dc-312bc0ced19e@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <6b7bf6e9-f3cb-4460-b1dc-312bc0ced19e@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com> X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact servicedesk@icts.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: k.kooi@student.utwente.nl X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 130.89.2.14 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: k.kooi@student.utwente.nl X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on serenity X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Cc: opkg-devel Subject: Re: [RFC] opkg conffiles force overwrite X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:19:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03-04-09 05:59, Tick wrote: > Hi All, > I am pondering that let conf->force_overwrite in opkg enable > resolve_conffiles overwrite any conffiles. Now opkg will not overwrite > the conffiles even if you set force_overwrite. It will cause opkg ask > user to choose what to do to the conffiles if they are changed. > > Adding another flag e.g. force_overwrite_conffile seems a little bit > superfluous and not orthogonal to force_overwrite. But it will not > change current opkg behavior. > > Letting force_overwrite can overwrite conffiles will cause logical > change of this flag. This will make opkg-cl asking nothing when > upgrade some conffiles if you set force_overwrite. It may cause users > lose their own setting without a second chance to save them? > > In my own opinion, I prefer let force_overwrite flag can overwrite > files including conffiles, because it has to be set manually. But this > will change the behaviour of opkg, and may have some impact on other > projects. Such as OE. That makes me consider again and again. > > My proposal is if conffiles been overwrited because force_overwrite > was set. > The old conffile XXXX will be move to XXXX~, and adding a warning > message of "overwriting conffile XXXX". > Is that a good solution? It's not a good solution since people use 'force-overwrite' to get around packages that don't (or can't) have RREPLACES set. If I do an opkg upgrade now, I don't want util-linux-ng-mount and busybox to start fighting over /etc/mountall, but I do want opkg to prompt me about fstab changes. regards, Koen