Re: make upgrade overwrites /etc/mail/mailer.conf
On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:04 +0100, Jonas Trollvik wrote:
> If an upgrade adds a service you dont want there is something wrong
> with the upgrade. Isnt the thought that all the services that'll be
> added are required for the system to function properly exactly just
> like a user is added automatically?
> Why else would be the point of this?
>
>
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:28:20 -0500, David Cuthbert <dacut@kanga.org> wrote:
> > Matthew Dillon wrote:
> > > I don't think it's necessary that we support service removal
> > > immediately, but if we were to do it I would suggest something like
> > > '-<servicename> ...' in /etc/services to remove a service entirely.
> >
> > Oof. This misses the (common) case where an upgrade adds a service I
> > don't want. I didn't remove it because I was unaware of it before.
> >
> > I'm somewhat fond of the way portage handles this (or, at least, is
> > supposed to): modify an example configuration file which is used for
> > reference only. /etc/make.conf, for example, is never touched;
> > upgrading portage modifies /etc/make.conf.example.
> >
> > Dave
> >
This shouldn't be an issue. If make upgrade modifies anything after this
change, it will be /etc/defaults/services, so you won't have anything
overwritten in the first place. If a service name is added
into /etc/defaults/services, I can't think of a single way that it would
be unwanted. If it's on the same port as something you've already got
in /etc/services, it's no problem because the one in /etc/services
overrides it anyway.
I like Matt's idea of (for instance)
-qotd 17/tcp
Assuming you wanted to simply overwrite it though, you could just do:
moocowsrv 17/tcp
in /etc/services.
--Devon
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 36 之 49 篇)：