Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:38:39 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: etcupdate tool in base? Message-ID: <201006101638.39084.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C11499E.6050300@FreeBSD.org> References: <201006101346.59824.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C11499E.6050300@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 10 June 2010 4:22:54 pm Doug Barton wrote: > On 06/10/10 10:46, John Baldwin wrote: > | I've had several folks ask me recently about importing etcupdate > | (http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/etcupdate) into the base system as an alternate > | tool for updating /etc during upgrades. Do folks have any strong objections > | to doing so? More details about how it works and an HTML version of the > | manpage can be found at the URL above. > > Initially mergemaster was a port which gave lots of people the > opportunity to gain familiarity with it easily. At some point after it > had been a port for a while there was a "critical mass" of people > suggesting that it be moved into the base system since it was one of > those ports that almost everyone installed anyway. > > That said, I have no objection to whatever the community decides should > be done with etcupdate. Given that they approach the problems of > updating differently I think that there will be people who are more > attracted to it instead of mergemaster, and that's fine too. :) My inclination is to simply add a port, but I had a rash of folks contact me today, so I was testing the waters to see what level of critical mass was present. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201006101638.39084.jhb>