Paul Howarth wrote: > Neal Becker wrote: >> Paul Howarth wrote: >>>Neal Becker wrote: >>>>Paul Howarth wrote: >>>>>Neal Becker wrote: >>>>>>It would save admins a lot of time if we modify rpm so that it does >>>>>>not >>>>>>create a .rpmnew file if there is no change from the old file. I >>>>>>would think this would be a simple modification. >>>>> >>>>>It already does this, doesn't it? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't think so! I keep syncing with develop every day, and most days >>>>I get a bunch of messages about "blah created as .rpmnew", and every day >>>>I run diff, and almost always get no output. >>> >>>Are you on an x86_64 box with lots of parallel-installed i386 packages? >>> >> >> >> Yes, x86_64. I have most parallel i386 packages that are standard on >> x86_64. I did not install extra i386 packages. >> >> Today, for example, there were a bunch of messages about upgrade to >> kdelibs-3.5.0-5. It does happen that there are both x86_64 and i386 >> versions of this, do you think this is the explanation? In any case, any >> chance to fix it? > > I think it's the same issue (multiple packages owning the same config > file) as for /etc/vimrc, except in this case it's different-arch > packages instead of different-name packages. > > I don't know what the *right* policy for these cases should be really. > Isn't it "right" to not create .rpmnew and report it to the user if there is no diff to the current version? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
