Config modified?

James Olin Oden joden at lee.k12.nc.us
Thu Oct 14 00:21:10 UTC 2004


On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:

<snip> 
> 	2. If it was going to remove my old config anyway, how would Joe
> Average know (since there were *no* messages or text on it) to go
> looking for an rpmsave file, 
Actually rpm itself prints these messages, but up2date is not doing 
anything with them.  I haven't looked so I don't know if the config file 
replacement are sent to the consumer of librpm via a registered callback 
or not (it it was then it would be relitively easy to capture this info
in up2date, yum or whatever) and then display a nice screen saying that 
the following config files have been updated and that the users changes 
were saved in the following files (or the reverse with noreplace).
At anyrate, whatever the mechanics of the underlying librpm, its probably 
doable in up2date.  Sounds like a feature that would be reasonable for all 
concerned. 

 > where he could then integrate his changes
> into the new config file? This sounds like a recipe for "forgotten"
> configurations, but an up2date UI problem rather than an RPM problem.
> 
Its definately documented in Maximum RPM, but your right the whatever UI 
that is wrapping rpm should probably let the user know about this.

> I checked the new fonts.map file and saw nothing strange (of course,
> it's the first time I ever looked at that file. I created a
> fonts.map.new with the /usr/share/a2ps/afm/make_fonts_map.sh script and
> the result was identical to the fonts.map file the new package
> installed.
> 
> Finally, I used "diff" to compare fonts.map and its rpmsave equivalent.
> The *only* differences I can find were fonts that got renamed by the
> newer package and fonts that were added by the newer package. Also, the
> only non-FC software on this system is Sun StarOffice 7... and while I
> would have expected it to modify some fonts, I cannot find any evidence
> that it did so.
>
RPM is only concerned that the file on the filesystem has a different md5 
checksum than the rpmdb says it has (note I did not say than the new 
package header says it has, subtle but its true).  Config files are opaque 
to a rpm (as are many things).  So it has it use a fairly sane yet 
arbitrary way of dealing with config files.  MD5 checksums it is.
 
Cheers...james

----
This message has been scanned by BitDefender
and found to be clean.




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list