Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 12:54:55 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions about pkgbase Message-ID: <36501ae5-5d7f-4e4c-8c96-0f1908ce1059@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aN5HTt0kWCbD_lNf@amaryllis.le-fay.org> References: <20251002.180121.980053125503545103.yasu@FreeBSD.org> <aN5DKrWeSlT978zr@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <CALH631=ioRih8n-DhD0D1CWjp3kbqemeJUzq2kBgg8GORjAN3g@mail.gmail.com> <aN5HTt0kWCbD_lNf@amaryllis.le-fay.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 02/10/2025 12:35, Lexi Winter wrote: > yes, the merge functionality is the same (more or less), but the result > for the user is worse: etcupdate makes it clear which files failed to > merge and offers a manual resolution of the merge with conflict markers, > while pkg just prints a message, which is usually lost in the hundreds > of other messages printed during an upgrade, and requires the user to > manually locate the unmerged files via find / -name '*.pkgnew', then > you only get the old and new files with no way to easily see what has > changed in the new version of the file. (basically, this is a manual > two-way merge.) > > if there's a better way to do this with pkg, i'd definitely like to know > about it. It would be good if pkg installed base configuration files into etcupdate's tree and then a user needed to explicitly run etcupdate to apply configuration updates. But I imagine that this may not be very easy to do and it would create a relatively fragile dependency between pkg and etcupdate. -- Andriy Gaponhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36501ae5-5d7f-4e4c-8c96-0f1908ce1059>