At 8:25 AM -0600 12/17/06, Alex White wrote: >Philip Prindeville wrote: >> I'm a flailing at cluefulness here. Maybe someone can set me straight. >> >> I run "yum" nightly (as as service), but I see a lot of "*.rpmnew" files >> being left around. >> >> What's most bizarre is that the original RPM files haven't been changed, >> and often the two files have the same size, contents (and hence MD5 >> signature), permissions, ownership, etc. Even the same file modification >> date in most cases. >> >> So why do they get left behind? >> >> # cd /etc/security >> # ls -ltr chroot* >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82 Aug 1 05:18 chroot.conf.rpmnew >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82 Aug 1 05:18 chroot.conf >> # diff -c chroot.conf.rpmnew chroot.conf >> # mv chroot.conf.rpmnew chroot.conf >> # >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Philip >> >> > >RPM is trying to not trample over configuration files that you have >modified. For instance, if you've changed chroot.conf in some way then >rpm will set the new configuration file in place with a .rpmnew, >flagging that 1. there is a new file from the update and 2. you may want >to look at this becaues your current config may now be broken or have >new options available you'll want to look at. I had about the same question about vim, and Paul Howarth answered me. Its some sort of buglet or bad interaction within rpm. >From: Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> >Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:14:13 +0100 >Subject: Re: broken VIM update on FC3?? > >On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 17:29 -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: >> At 4:07 PM -0400 8/11/05, taharka wrote: >> ... >> >After both updates, I received the following message, >> >warning: /etc/vimrc created as /etc/vimrc.rpmnew >> > >> >Sho nuff, if I look in /etc, there is a file vimrc.rpmnew. >> > >> >Any one else seeing this? Also, what needs to be done about it? >> >> $ diff /etc/vimrc /etc/vimrc.rpmnew >> $ >> >> There are no differences, so you might as well remove /etc/vimrc.rpmnew. >> If there had been differences, you'd probably want to merge them into the >> vimrc file. >> >> But why was such a file created anyway? I'd have thought that there would >> be at least minimal merge logic which would not make .rpmnew files when the >> file would be identical with the original. > >My understanding of the logic for configuration files in package updates >is: > >if old-rpm-config-file is identical to new-rpm-config-file >then > leave the installed-config-file unchanged >elsif installed-config-file is identical to old-rpm-config-file >then > install new-rpm-config-file >elsif config file marked (noreplace) in rpm package >then > install new-rpm-config-file as new-rpm-config-file.rpmnew >else > rename installed-config-file installed-config-file.rpmsave > install new-rpm-config-file >endif > >Given that vimrc has not changed over many releases, one might expect >that vimrc.rpmnew files shouldn't get created, but they always do. I >believe that the reason for this is that /etc/vimrc is included in both >the vim-minimal and vim-common; there's no conflict between these two >packages because the vimrc file is the same in both packages, but rpm >seems to create the .rpmnew file anyway. > >Paul. -- ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' The Great Writ <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' is no more. <http://www.georgeanelson.com/> -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
