Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-02-04 09:23:33

I don't like the behaviour of pacman: it stores new / changed configuration files under the genuine name, and backups the user's ones as pacsave files.

Shouldn't it be the other way? I don't want pacman to change my config files. It should suggest me to change something, and place documentation of changes and a suggestion for a new config file as configfile.date.pacnew.

I allways liked debian for going this way.

Furthermore, I want to suggest a new category in this forum about the changes in config files. Lately, my udev settings where replaced by original ones. I had a lot of work tweaking my udev, had to compare the new ones with my own settings line by line, found out there was no change or I have not noticed them, replaced the original ones with my own again, hold the breath and reboot.

cactus · 2005-02-04 09:30:42

/etc/pacman.conf
NoUpgrade = path/to/conf/file1.conf path/to/file2.conf
NoUpgrade = another/path/to/another/filex.conf an/even/different/path/filey.conf
##notice no leading slash. This is correct syntax for pacman.conf exclusion paths

also

prompt $ man pacman
/NoUpgrade  directive

Note. The /NoUp.. is a search in the man page. A slash, then the word NoUpgrade, then two spaces, then the word directive.
then scroll up a few lines...[/code]

tomk · 2005-02-04 14:26:47

I agree with you, Chick. Certainly, NoUpgrade can be specified, cactus, but I'd prefer if that was the default behaviour, overridden by a user-specified Upgrade directive in pacman.conf if required.

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-02-04 15:27:01

cactus wrote:

/etc/pacman.conf
NoUpgrade = path/to/conf/file1.conf path/to/file2.conf
NoUpgrade = another/path/to/another/filex.conf an/even/different/path/filey.conf
##notice no leading slash. This is correct syntax for pacman.conf exclusion paths
also
prompt $ man pacman
/NoUpgrade  directive
Note. The /NoUp.. is a search in the man page. A slash, then the word NoUpgrade, then two spaces, then the word directive.
then scroll up a few lines...[/code]

I know how to use manpages, cactus . I was asking for doing it vice versa: I don't like add a list of files into pacman.conf. pacman should not touch existing configs in any way.

Pacman should create a new sample config, if there was a change at all.
Most of the times, I find my own config files replaced with samples for no reason.

sarah31 · 2005-02-04 16:30:17

other than placing a few files in NoUpgrade pacman rarely replace my user configed files unles there were need changes. Usually the backup behavior is to place the new files in backup and the old ones stay as the user.

BTW if you want to know differences between file why do the line by line analysis when you can let diff do it?

Also you should not always assume that your user files will do the trick after an upgrade .. especially upgrading to whole numbers. You should always check your config files afterwards especially base packages. The last thing you want is your inattentiveness costing you hours of trying to recover your system.

phrakture · 2005-02-04 19:21:39

sarah31 wrote:

Also you should not always assume that your user files will do the trick after an upgrade .. especially upgrading to whole numbers. You should always check your config files afterwards especially base packages. The last thing you want is your inattentiveness costing you hours of trying to recover your system.

That's what I was going to say: an upgrade may totally invalidate your old config.

i3839 · 2005-02-05 00:14:24

An update can both invalidate your oldconfig, but the new default config is often also unusable, so it can't be perfect. All I just notice is that I have almost never a new config which is better than my old custom one.

I started a thread with the same topic a while ago, seems like people don't care about this.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … ht=pacsave

kill · 2005-02-05 01:58:27

Pink Chick wrote:

Lately, my udev settings where replaced by original ones. I had a lot of work tweaking my udev, had to compare the new ones with my own settings line by line, found out there was no change or I have not noticed them, replaced the original ones with my own again, hold the breath and reboot.

Udev loads permissions from any file in /etc/udev/permissions.d in alphabetical order. The first rule loaded takes prescedence. The best thing to do is when you have custom rules for udev make a file called something like 00-myrules.permissions put all your stuff in there that way you don't have to worry about it being overwritten by pacman. Gotta love the wiki, thats where i got that info from.

sweiss · 2005-02-10 16:52:47

I had a similar issue with a CUPS upgrade, which resulted in my printers being cleared. Had to move the old files back in place, but I think the default should be a .pacnew instead.

sarah31 · 2005-02-10 23:38:53

i3839 wrote:

An update can both invalidate your oldconfig, but the new default config is often also unusable, so it can't be perfect. All I just notice is that I have almost never a new config which is better than my old custom one.
I started a thread with the same topic a while ago, seems like people don't care about this.
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … ht=pacsave

I cared but my understanding is that the .pacsave is almost always the new file which is extracted as a backup. The only time the behavior was different was if the file in question NEEDED to override the new one because of coding changes of the binary or if the maintainer did not realize that certain files should not be touched and, therefore, never placed that file in the "backup=" array.

apeiro · 2005-02-11 03:11:05

sweiss wrote:

I had a similar issue with a CUPS upgrade, which resulted in my printers being cleared. Had to move the old files back in place, but I think the default should be a .pacnew instead.

No promises yet, but this may become the new default down the line. I'll keep ya posted.

sarah31 · 2005-02-11 06:00:18

isn't most of what drives CUPS configuration help in the printcap file? it was something like this I thought and, as I remember, it rarely changed from upgrade to upgrade.

Xentac · 2005-02-13 20:48:25

Pink Chick wrote:

I don't like the behaviour of pacman: it stores new / changed configuration files under the genuine name, and backups the user's ones as pacsave files.
Shouldn't it be the other way? I don't want pacman to change my config files. It should suggest me to change something, and place documentation of changes and a suggestion for a new config file as configfile.date.pacnew.
I allways liked debian for going this way.
Furthermore, I want to suggest a new category in this forum about the changes in config files. Lately, my udev settings where replaced by original ones. I had a lot of work tweaking my udev, had to compare the new ones with my own settings line by line, found out there was no change or I have not noticed them, replaced the original ones with my own again, hold the breath and reboot.

There is only one case where a pacsave file is created. The options are outlined in the pacman man page. Find the 'HANDLING CONFIG FILES' section. It's based on rpm's config handling logic.

Moo-Crumpus · 2005-02-14 17:37:26

If I'd liked rpm I would prefer to use it. If rpm handles it this way, I don't care. The fact is, I don't like any automatism replace my config files.

Xentac mentioned the manpages. The case, when users configs are replaced, is the XYZ case: Original file differs from current file differs from new file. Then pacman saves a backup as pacsave, and installs the new file. Should this be a good choise, just because rpm behaves that way? I suppose this argument to be somehow weak.

I would prefer a different solution in given XYZ cases: don't replace the current file, and safe the new one as pacnew. And, furthermore, give root a hint about what-differs-why.

Dusty · 2005-02-14 18:17:13

That is the one case that can be confusing. The reason for it is that sometimes (often) the new file contains things that are required to make the new version work. You lose your config, but at least you have a working default.

I totally understand that this type of automation is not what a lot of people, especially Arch-type users would like. We do it all by hand. Personally, anytime I encounter a pacsave file I add it to my list of NoUpgrades. It only happens after a fresh install, after a while it seems to stop happening. On the otherHand, there could be a NoUpgradeIsDefault option in pacman.conf so that either behavior can be selected, depending on user taste.

Dusty

Arch Linux

#1 2005-02-04 09:23:33

Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#2 2005-02-04 09:30:42

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#3 2005-02-04 14:26:47

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#4 2005-02-04 15:27:01

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#5 2005-02-04 16:30:17

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#6 2005-02-04 19:21:39

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#7 2005-02-05 00:14:24

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#8 2005-02-05 01:58:27

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#9 2005-02-10 16:52:47

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#10 2005-02-10 23:38:53

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#11 2005-02-11 03:11:05

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#12 2005-02-11 06:00:18

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#13 2005-02-13 20:48:25

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#14 2005-02-14 17:37:26

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

#15 2005-02-14 18:17:13

Re: Don't like userchangedsetupfile.pacsave

Board footer