[arch-general] No login after update

[Yaro Kasear]

On 8/19/20 2:56 PM, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> On 8/19/20 2:48 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote:
>> Em agosto 19, 2020 16:37 Yaro Kasear escreveu:
>>> I've always questioned the wisdom of dropping a .pacnew just when the
>>> file is different from the default. There's really no reason for it
>>> considering any changes you made were deliberate and presumably thought
>>> out. The end result is pacman cluttering /etc with a default
>>> configuration file whose only reason for existing is to, if it's used,
>>> clear settings. Why?
>>>
>> The .pacnew is there to indicate that something new exists, or that
>> you changed
>> something. Most of the time you can remove .pacnew files, but not
>> always. Also,
>> it's only "cluttering" /etc (and /boot, btw), if you don't handle them.
>>
>>> What pacman SHOULD do is compare /etc files between package versions and
>>> see if there's a change BETWEEN DEFAULTS. *Then* there's an actual
>>> reason to need a new default config file for the user to examine because
>>> then there's an actual indicator some meaningful change in default
>>> configuration or how the package handles configs happened.
>>>
>> That's way beyond the scope of a package manager, and also, there's no
>> way
>> to tell what "DEFAULTS" (why caps?) should be.
> Caps for emphasis is all.
>>> All most pacnew files wind up doing is sitting there for thirty seconds
>>> before being deleted without anyone even opening them because they're
>>> literally just what the file was before the user ALREADY changed it
>>> before... because it's utterly useless to get a default config file when
>>> you've intentionally changed it and there's nothing in the new version
>>> of the package that calls for an examination of the defaults.
>>>
>> I don't know why you said that .pacnew sits for thirty seconds before
>> being
>> deleted. Are you using a hook that does this? Because nothing handles
>> them
>> automatically, that's the user's job. There are tools to aid in doing
>> that,
>> but in the end the user should know what to apply, and what to discard.
> I wasn't being literal about thirty seconds. Exaggerating.
>> Regards,
>> Giancarlo Razzolini
> Yaro
>
>
Oh, also:

"That's way beyond the scope of a package manager, and also, there's no
way to tell what "DEFAULTS" (why caps?) should be."

Yes there is. The defaults are literally what's in the config file in
the archive and not on the filesystem. How would that not be a way to
determine default settings?

I'm not suggesting the package manager would have to understand the
settings, but it would be able to tell if the contents of that file are
different from another version. (Which it obviously does already,
otherwise it wouldn't know to make a pacnew file.)

I can't imagine it'd be that difficult for pacman to compare checksums
between files in /etc or /boot between versions of a package (If a
previous version is available.) and what's on /etc and determine if it
really needs to bother putting a pacnew file on the filesystem that
doesn't need to be there. It's already doing some sort of check between
what's in the package and what's on the filesystem already.

Yaro


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20200819/9564a68e/attachment.sig>