[arch-general] Why was wpa_supplicant.conf renamed wpa_supplicant.conf.pacsav??

[Leonid Isaev]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 09:40:29PM +0100, Maarten de Vries wrote:
> On 18 December 2016 at 21:32, Leonid Isaev <leonid.isaev at jila.colorado.edu>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:25:00PM -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:
> > >   I know this is small-potatoes stuff, but I just wonder if in these
> > > instances, it may not be better to either provide pre-update notice or
> > do a
> > > post-install script rather than relying on a post update action by the
> > user?
> > > At least in the cases where you know up-front that existing
> > functionality will
> > > be disabled by the upgrade. (which was apparent from the comment)
> >
> > Hmm, what about reading /var/log/pacman.log?
> >
> >
> ​A log is great for figuring out what went happened after something broke,
> but it shouldn't have to be part of a normal upgrade procedure in my
> opinion. Personally I do think the provided message was enough though.

Update messages are hard to see if they scroll past quickly, or when updating
via scripts. On the other hand, pacman.log contains "warning:" lines that show
which files were renamed. And why do you believe that logs are only useful
post-mortem?

-- 
Leonid Isaev