mergemaster improvement (auto-update for not modified files)

Denis Peplin den at
Fri May 6 07:46:06 PDT 2005


Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:18, Denis Peplin wrote:
>>But for not modified files etcmerge is too complicated. Updating
>>for not modified files should be done in fully automated mode.
> hmm, but for unmodified files etcmerge does nothing - you don't have to do 
> anything unless you want to edit the new files so it IS automated.
> Like I said before etcmerge's UI is not like mergemaster - it is much more 
> batch oriented.
It is complicated for end-user to move from mergemaster to etcmerge
(need to install new tool, read manual, perform some additional work...)

>>And for comparision, this file
>>is only 264 kB in size. Unlike etcmerge archives (from link in etcmerge
>>manpage), it contain checksums, and checksums included for every
>>revision, even if it was not included in official release.
> You don't need to download anything to start using etcmerge, you can just use 
> the files from your last mergemaster.
For etcmerge it is need to run mergemaster "one last time", or use
etc archive for some release.  So if mergemaster will be improved,
it will be better for etcmerge :)

>>I think that checksums database can be even committed into
>>CVS and will not bloat it. Ideally, this way of updating should be
>>available even for those users who have no access to internet
>>(distribution recieved on CDROM, etc.)
> 264k is a pretty large file to commit to the repo..
Yes, I know. And don't sure that it is some need to commit this file.
Anyway, this file is less that INDEX, and unlike INDEX, will not
rapidly changed. Checksum database will grow slowly.

P.S. I will be away till 10.05.

More information about the freebsd-hackers mailing list