From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 10 00:00:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8E937B404 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C79A43F75 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.gorean.org (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003041007002605100ndgrbe>; Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:00:26 +0000 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:00:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030321.064026.31318505.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <20030409235554.F1708@znfgre.tberna.bet> References: <20030321041548.GY25577@geekpunk.net> <20030321082108.GA7590@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20030321.064026.31318505.imp@bsdimp.com> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: brandon@dvalentine.com Subject: Re: generalized mergemaster(8) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 07:00:28 -0000 On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20030321082108.GA7590@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> > Peter Jeremy writes: > : Have you considered emacs ediff-directories? It might be better suited > : than mergemaster for handling arbitrary directories. > > NetBSD also has usr.sbin/etcupdate, which appears to be a redone > mergemaster which seems to a little better. s/better/different/ etcupdate is trying to do a different job. I've talked to Luke about the way NetBSD handles the etc updating, and while I don't think it's a BAD way to do things, I'm not sure it's the best way. The particular thing about etcupdate that troubles me is that it has intimate knowledge of the files it's supposed to update, which means a lot of work to keep it up to date. > Personally, I wish that there was a set of scripts that did the > following: [snipped the cvs utopian dream] :) > But that's quite a bit different than mergemaster, and a lot more > overhead to setup unless the scripts are very smart... Really, really hard, and really, really different. Also very hard to do in a way that works for more than a handful of power users. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection