Tom Lane píše v Po 23. 02. 2009 v 13:08 -0500: > Jon Masters <jcm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > However, I don't think enough consideration was given to the upgrade > > path. As I raise on IRC, due to this change rpm will now consider *all* > > local config files to have been changed by the user and use .rpmnew > > files at upgrade time. I don't think enough consideration has been given > > to this, to the impact upon upgrade, or to the need to ensure that > > everyone doing an upgrade is aware of this. (This only affects %config, not %config(noreplace).) > Seems like an RPM bug to me. Why should a hash change cause a local > config file to be considered modified? Surely it's either identical > to the RPM's file, or not. If the user has changed a configuration file, rpm needs to know on upgrade whether the configuration file was changed by the packager between the two package versions. The unmodified configuration file for the old version is no longer available, so rpm can only compare the hashes. Mirek -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
