[arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and filesystem 2007.11-6
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Wed Jan 30 12:30:41 EST 2008
On Jan 30, 2008 11:07 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 8:33 AM, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > Van: arch-dev-public-bounces at archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public-
> > > bounces at archlinux.org] Namens Dan McGee
> > > Verzonden: woensdag 30 januari 2008 15:08
> > > Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development
> > > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and
> > > filesystem 2007.11-6
> > >
> > > >
> > > > http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html
> > > > Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug?
> > > > Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user?
> > >
> > > I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there
> > > for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users
> > > would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to
> > > me.
> > As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't change it, 99%
> > of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For the 1%
> > of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in backup.
> Jan's is correct here, BUT /etc/issue has never been in the backup
> array as far as I can tell, so it is not a regression. Let's do the
> following: Sign off on this one so we can get it out the door and fix
> the REAL issues. New ISOs are coming soon, so we will need to bump
> this package anyway. We can add that then
Signoff both packages, i686.
More information about the arch-dev-public