Re: Changing config from a %post?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Once upon a time, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Am 16.02.2018 um 15:35 schrieb Chris Adams:
> >The imapproxy package config defaults to user "nobody", which should be
> >changed (probably should have been done a while back, but whatever).
> >The user is set in the config though, and the config has to be edited
> >for the package to work (to at least set the upstream IMAP server), so
> >changing the packaged config will only result in a .rpmnew file.
> >
> >What's the proper way to fix this?  I can update the package to create a
> >user and use it in the default config, but is it correct to have a %post
> >that changes the existing config (something like a "sed -i")?
> >
> >I'd also like to switch it from running in daemon mode to foreground
> >mode (and change the systemd unit to match), but again, that requires
> >editing the config; there's no command-line option for either of these.
> >
> >I'm not sure of the "best practice" here... as a system admin, it feels
> >wrong to have RPM scriptlets editing config, but I don't see another way
> >forward, short of modifying the program to accept command-line overrides
> >for these options (which has its own "fun")
> 
> don't touch configs - Apache 2.2 and Apache 2.4 configs also where
> widely incompatible and within a distr-upgrade as admin you are
> supposed to handle such changes but when you touch my configs for
> whatever package i get terrible angry because you can't know if it
> even works as you expect combined with other non.default options
> which are the point of configfiles

This is nothing like the Apache change - in this case, the config is
exactly the same, but a couple of options need to be changed to continue
to work.

The user change won't hurt, it's just something that should have been
changed from the start.

The daemon/foreground change though has to match the systemd unit.  I
plan to change the unit to expect/use a foreground process, which means
if the config is not changed to match, the service won't work right.

Is it "okay" to break and require manual configuration intervention on a
Fedora version upgrade?

-- 
Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux