Upgrading to 7.0 - stupid requirements

[Matthew Seaman]

Freddie Cash wrote:

> All that's really needed is a more formalised process for handling
> upgrading config files, with as much as possible managed via the ports
> framework itself.  Something that dictates the name of the config
> file, and that compares the config file from the port against the
> installed config file (or against an md5 of the port config file) and
> only replaces it if it is unchanged.  Something that is part of the
> make system.

Most ports that install configuration files actually do this already.
It's generally why you'll find that a sample configuration file is
considered part of the port, but the actuall live configuration file
is not.  The port will only feel free to meddle with the config file if
it is still identical to the sample file.

	Cheers,

	Matthew
-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                   7 Priory Courtyard
                                                  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey     Ramsgate
                                                  Kent, CT11 9PW

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 258 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20080323/7befbe36/signature.pgp