Upgrading to 7.0 - stupid requirements

[Stefan Lambrev]

Greetings,

Eirik Øverby wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2008, at 08:28, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> There are a few exceptions to this rule: The courier authdaemon ports, 
> for instance, are notorious for overwriting my carefully-crafted 
> configuration files when upgrading. I loathe those ports (or apps - 
> not sure who's to blame) for that reason alone. In fact, it not only 
> installs a config.dist file (which is fine), but it ALSO overwrites 
> the current config. A cardinal sin, if there ever were any..
I'm using FreeBSD + courrier for imap/pop3 and auth for more then 2 
years till now and this never happen to me.
Though I'm using portupgrade to upgrade those ports.
The only port that destroyed my configuration file is blocksshd, I 
reported it and it was fixed in 2 days.