[Exherbo-dev] [RFC] A new approach to CONFIG_PROTECT

Alex Elsayed eternaleye at gmail.com
Sun Feb 19 20:31:50 UTC 2012


Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh at ...> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:11:06 +0000 (UTC)
> Alex Elsayed <eternaleye at ...> wrote:
>
> > This is how I imagine the new layout might look:
>
> I'm slightly confused by your directory layout here. Let's say
> that /var/foo is also protected. Would that live in /var/foo/.c-p
> or /etc/.c-p/var/foo?

/var/foo/.c-p

> > Note that the package manager will *never* merge directly to a
> > CONFIG_PROTECT directory, even if there is no preexisting file.
> 
> That's unworkable. Say foo deps upon bar, and bar needs /etc stuff
> present to work. You'd not be able to install foo and bar as part of
> the same resolution then.

Mm, perhaps a tweak that it merges to both /etc/.c-p *and* the actual
destination in that case? That way it still interoperates properly
with configuration management.

> Don't think performance is an issue. Let's focus on functionality first.

It was more something I realized after I had the idea. Also, on my laptop
using eclectic config has about a 10-15 second startup lag from scanning
/etc and the rest. For the non-interactive stuff, that adds up fast.
 
> > However, in order to support configuration management properly, we
> > cannot have the user altering the original files in the course of
> > managing these updates. Therefore, when the user would perform an
> > action that could modify the original file, the original file is
> > instead copied to the 'old' directory and the action is performed on
> > the copy.
> 
> That sounds like it's getting in the way of the user. Supporting
> complex things is good, but we shouldn't force it upon people who don't
> want to screw around with configuration management.

Maybe an option then? The current method of running the action on all
updates involved in the conflict at once would lose information in the
case of the user wanting configuration management, but I see your point.
Perhaps eclectic could call into the configuration management plugins
to ask whether they are active, and only change its behavior if one
answers "yes"?





More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list