Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:16:37 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Andy Christianson <achristianson@orases.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cfg-update equivalent? Message-ID: <47F73565.6020502@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <776B93361B7BEE4FAD9E720FFBC746B6012B9031@34093-EVS4C2.exchange.rackspace.com> References: <776B93361B7BEE4FAD9E720FFBC746B6012B9031@34093-EVS4C2.exchange.rackspace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigC38532532C6875C8E8464D3F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andy Christianson wrote:
> In Gentoo, there is a program called cfg-update that will help to merge=
> new configuration options that come with a new version of software when=
> you do a system update from portage.
> Does FreeBSD have any equivalent to this that ensures that configuratio=
n
> files work after updating software with portupgrade?
Portage and ports work in vary different ways despite the similarity of
outcome. In particular, the ports have the massive advantage of being
separated from the base system under FreeBSD. This means that there are
great swathes of functionality that can simply be assumed, and need no
configuration knobs to deal with. Also, dare I say it, FreeBSD developer=
s
understand the principles of maintaining constant ABIs and APIs and
adhering to POLA rather better than what I've seen of Gentoo.
As for maintaining the configuration files used by installed ports, well
again, the philosophy is completely different here as well. How a port i=
s
configured is held to be no business at all of the port and entirely in t=
he
control of the system administrator.
You don't get spoon-fed a pre-packaged configuration. The disadvantage h=
ere
is that the system administrator has to think about what they are doing -=
-
so it takes more time and effort to make things work right. Of course, t=
he
advantage here is that the system administrator has to think about what t=
hey
are doing -- so the system is going to be made to work right straight fro=
m
the beginning and the people maintaining it will have learned a lot more =
about
keeping it working right.
On installation, ports can suggest to the adminstrator what to do next; t=
hey
cannot prescribe such. Which means that if you want to set things up in a=
way
that the port maintainer, or indeed the software author, had never contem=
plated
even in their wildest dreams, well so you can. And no necessity to unpic=
k
someone else's idea of the right way to do it (which would inevitably be
reimposed after any updates) beforehand either.
In short, the answer to your question is "no."
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enigC38532532C6875C8E8464D3F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkf3NWoACgkQ8Mjk52CukIyZcgCeM0Mf8pAP3tHPWGN85xOfUh/A
oOcAn06+CKmwnoDZs6yNkYplipsjq2gS
=BWmq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigC38532532C6875C8E8464D3F--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47F73565.6020502>