Mailing List Archive: portage vs symlinks

portage vs symlinks

Oct 23, 2004, 3:37 PM

Post #1 of 8 (289 views)

I just noticed this recently, but perhaps previous versions of portage
had the same behavior.

A practiced I developed when using redhat for years was to place all
modified config files (e.g. /etc/postfix/main.cf) on a separate
filesystem /local (/local/etc/postfix/main.cf) and leave a symlink in
the root filesystem
(/etc/postfix/main.cf-->/local/etc/postfix/main.cf).
Then when a new release came out I would go through /local and
re-establish the symlinks, putting in changes as needed.

(A very few files like /etc/fstab must be on the root filesystem so I
treated them specially.)

My last emerge of baselayout (I believe done with the new portage)
resulted in a number of my symlinks being replaced with the new
files. For example /etc/conf.d/net had the new file and my
/local/etc/conf.d/net remained but was not linked to. Moreover, no
._*nnn file was produced so etc-update did not find the change (I
never use -3 or -5).

Is this a bug with the new portage or I have somehow not noticed the
feature before. Specifically,

1. Should an emerge replace a symlink with an ordinary file?

2. Should a ._*nnn file be produced?

The current behavior is "yes" and "no". I am glad that portage didn't
leave the link and silently change the target of the link.

I realize that gentoo is not "released-based" as was redhat, so
perhaps my practice is inappropriate. But I still believe that, in the
situation described above, a ._*nnn file should be produced.

Thanks,
allan

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

ragermany at gmx

Oct 23, 2004, 4:21 PM

Post #2 of 8 (284 views)

Permalink

On 23 Oct 2004 18:37:25 -0400 gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> I just noticed this recently, but perhaps previous versions of portage
> had the same behavior.

[snip]

> Is this a bug with the new portage or I have somehow not noticed the
> feature before. Specifically,
>
> 1. Should an emerge replace a symlink with an ordinary file?
>
> 2. Should a ._*nnn file be produced?
>
> The current behavior is "yes" and "no". I am glad that portage didn't
> leave the link and silently change the target of the link.
>
> I realize that gentoo is not "released-based" as was redhat, so
> perhaps my practice is inappropriate. But I still believe that, in
> the situation described above, a ._*nnn file should be produced.

What for? The ._*nnn file would have the same content as the replaced
file so it just seems to be a waste of disk space.

Cheers,
Renat

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

ti.liame at email

Oct 24, 2004, 12:35 AM

Post #3 of 8 (281 views)

Permalink

On Sunday 24 October 2004 01:21, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2004 18:37:25 -0400 gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> > I just noticed this recently, but perhaps previous versions of
> > portage had the same behavior.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Is this a bug with the new portage or I have somehow not noticed
> > the feature before. Specifically,
> >
> > 1. Should an emerge replace a symlink with an ordinary file?
> >
> > 2. Should a ._*nnn file be produced?
> >
> > The current behavior is "yes" and "no". I am glad that portage
> > didn't leave the link and silently change the target of the link.
> >
> > I realize that gentoo is not "released-based" as was redhat, so
> > perhaps my practice is inappropriate. But I still believe that, in
> > the situation described above, a ._*nnn file should be produced.
>
> What for? The ._*nnn file would have the same content as the replaced
> file so it just seems to be a waste of disk space.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Renat

Sorry if I'm a bit blunt, but I think you didn't understand the point...

OP wasn't warned by etc-update about new config files because the
symlink were silently overwritten during update, and that's not a
desirable behaviour...

About space wasting, I feel happier to see a config file marked
with ._*nnn convention even if is 99% equal to existing one, than to
experience downtime for the differing 1% blindly overwritten...

That said, I still haven't any good news for the OP...

Ciao
Francesco

--
Linux Version 2.6.9, Compiled #1 Sat Oct 23 15:39:21 CEST 2004
One 665MHz AMD Duron Processor, 768M RAM, 1302.52 Bogomips Total
slowdown

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

jstubbs at gentoo

Oct 24, 2004, 12:57 AM

Post #4 of 8 (286 views)

Permalink

On Sunday 24 October 2004 07:37, gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> I just noticed this recently, but perhaps previous versions of portage
> had the same behavior.
>
> A practiced I developed when using redhat for years was to place all
> modified config files (e.g. /etc/postfix/main.cf) on a separate
> filesystem /local (/local/etc/postfix/main.cf) and leave a symlink in
> the root filesystem
> (/etc/postfix/main.cf-->/local/etc/postfix/main.cf).
> Then when a new release came out I would go through /local and
> re-establish the symlinks, putting in changes as needed.

This should be fixed in >=portage-2.0.51. What portage version are you
running? If not the latest, can you upgrade and please try again?

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

gottlieb at nyu

Oct 24, 2004, 12:46 PM

Post #5 of 8 (281 views)

Permalink

At Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:35:31 +0200 Francesco Talamona <ti.liame@email.it> wrote:

> On Sunday 24 October 2004 01:21, Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> > On 23 Oct 2004 18:37:25 -0400 gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> > > Is this a bug with the new portage or I have somehow not noticed
> > > the feature before. Specifically,
> > >
> > > 1. Should an emerge replace a symlink with an ordinary file?
> > >
> > > 2. Should a ._*nnn file be produced?
> > >
> > > The current behavior is "yes" and "no". I am glad that portage
> > > didn't leave the link and silently change the target of the link.
> >
> > What for? The ._*nnn file would have the same content as the replaced
> > file so it just seems to be a waste of disk space.
>
> Sorry if I'm a bit blunt, but I think you didn't understand the point...
>
> OP wasn't warned by etc-update about new config files because the
> symlink were silently overwritten during update, and that's not a
> desirable behaviour...

Yes, that was my point. I probably should have made it clearer.
Thanks for clarifying.

Pardon my ignorance, but what does OP stand for, "operator"? "other
poster"? <something-else>?.

thanks,
allan

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

gottlieb at nyu

Oct 24, 2004, 1:09 PM

Post #6 of 8 (281 views)

Permalink

At Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:57:16 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sunday 24 October 2004 07:37, gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> > I just noticed this recently, but perhaps previous versions of portage
> > had the same behavior.
> >
> > A practiced I developed when using redhat for years was to place all
> > modified config files (e.g. /etc/postfix/main.cf) on a separate
> > filesystem /local (/local/etc/postfix/main.cf) and leave a symlink in
> > the root filesystem
> > (/etc/postfix/main.cf-->/local/etc/postfix/main.cf).
> > Then when a new release came out I would go through /local and
> > re-establish the symlinks, putting in changes as needed.
>
> This should be fixed in >=portage-2.0.51. What portage version are you
> running? If not the latest, can you upgrade and please try again?

I had updated portage, but I guess prior to the update of baselayout.
Now with portage-2.0.51-r2, it has behavior I prefer.

The previous copy of the config is untouched (both source and target
of the symlink) and the new version is in a ._cfgnnnn_* file.

Thanks,
allan

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

ragermany at gmx

Oct 24, 2004, 2:12 PM

Post #7 of 8 (283 views)

Permalink

On 24 Oct 2004 15:46:16 -0400 gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what does OP stand for, "operator"? "other
> poster"? <something-else>?.

Original Poster

Cheers,
Renat

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Re: portage vs symlinks [ In reply to ]

gottlieb at nyu

Oct 24, 2004, 3:16 PM

Post #8 of 8 (289 views)

Permalink

At Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:12:13 +0200 Renat Golubchyk <ragermany@gmx.net> wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2004 15:46:16 -0400 gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote:
> > Pardon my ignorance, but what does OP stand for, "operator"? "other
> > poster"? <something-else>?.
>
> Original Poster

thanks,
allan

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list