On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 03:09 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 12:07 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 20:27 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > >>> On 2/28/07, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> It's called "to mess around in a system". Admins, who do that, often > >>>> forget what files they've changed, and "rpm -Va" only reports the changed > >>>> checksum, not a diff. > >>> Hmmm, how much secret sauce would it take to make it easy to get a > >>> diff of changes for scripts files which fail an rpm -V check. Probably > >>> not really worth the pain of attempting to kludge together. > >>> > >>> -jef"goes off to sandwhich yumdownloader, rpm -V, rpm2cpio and diff > >>> together inside a delicious perl wrapper"spaleta > >>> > >> Luke Macken, Will Woods, and I were talking about something just a > >> little less ambitious at FudCON. Just keeping a history of config > >> files. Here's a bit of a hack that could get you started. The one > >> glaring problem that I see with it is that it doesn't keep a copy of the > >> original file. ie: When I want to see the change, I probably want a > >> diff3 between the original file, my modified file, and the file rpm is > >> going to install. Without the original, I can only see the changes > >> between my modified file and the new one. > > > > The last time this discussion came up, I suggested someone just go steal > > code and/or ideas from Gentoo's etc-update, and no one seems to have > > done so. > > > > It's not like this is a new problem. > > From the discussion, etc-update seemed to lack the ability to do diff3 with the original file as well. Looking at the home page on gentoo's site, it looks like etc-update is just a merge tool, not a history tool. So you're often lacking context on a change (especially if it's a system that you've only recently taken over maintenance of.) Keeping a copy of each config file in a revision control system might be overkill but it would solve these kinds of problems. Keeping just original, modified, and new versions would go a long way. > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-July/msg00286.html > > It is available as RPM even for Fedora is some third party repositories. The link posted there doesn't work, but www.rpmfind.net still has working links: http://www.rpmfind.net//linux/RPM/mandriva/10.0/contrib/i586/etc-update-20020731-5mdk.noarch.html -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
