ports overwriting configuration files [was: FreeBSD Port:bacula-1.32f5 updating destroys prior bacula conf files]

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Sat May 15 13:52:08 PDT 2004

Brian Reichert wrote:

> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 09:15:13PM -0400, Michael Edenfield wrote:
>>* Ben Bangert <ben at knowledgetap.com> [040513 20:28]:
>>>I ran portupgrade the other day on bacula. Christ was that a mistake. I 
>>>had the absurd idea that as portupgrade has always done with every port 
>>>thus upgraded, it would save a copy of the conf files for the port. 
>>>Prolly to .old or something.
>>If upgrading the port removed your config files, then the port is most
>>likely to blame, not portupgrade.  The only backups (AFAIK) that
>>portupgrade keeps are old shared libraries, and if requested, a backup
>>of the old packages.
> Somewhat applicable:
> <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/dads-config.html>
> But, having been bitten by the qmail port in the saem way (ports/58701),
> it's obvious that nothing enforces this policy.

This is a clear violation of the guidelines, and filing a PR against it is absolutely
the right thing to do. Work with the maintainer, nag her/him, and return here or
complain to portmgr if this doesn't help (be sure to have a patch available, though).

> I haven't pawed though the portupgrade toolset to see if there's a
> feasable shim that could be introduced, to at the very least warn
> the installer that their config files may have been overwritten
> (mtime?)  Dunno; it annoys me, too...

Grmbl. It is hard to think of an algorithm that recognizes `real' configuration
files automatically. In my ports I install *.default configuration files, which
*are* overwritten with new ones. The `real' configuration files are not touched
if they are different (edited) from the default ones, but of course I know which
are the real and which are the default files.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list