Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:15:51 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Mike Jakubik <mike.jakubik@intertainservices.com> Subject: Re: RFC: etcupdate tool in base? Message-ID: <201006110815.51061.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C114B8C.70407@intertainservices.com> References: <201006101346.59824.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C113342.7070804@icyb.net.ua> <4C114B8C.70407@intertainservices.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 10 June 2010 4:31:08 pm Mike Jakubik wrote: > On 6/10/2010 2:47 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > on 10/06/2010 21:29 Eitan Adler said the following: > > > >> -1 unless mergemaster is replaced. > > Have you tried etcupdate? > > etcupdate and mergemaster have a similar function but do things in quite a > > different way. While one is intended to be more interactive, the other is more > > automated. They can not replace each other. > > > > > > -1 Also. > > How does this differ from a "mergemaster -iFU" ? That's pretty much as > automated as it can get. If you have a locally modified file, (e.g. enabled pam_ssh in /etc/pam.d/system), then mergemaster will require you to manually merge the changes interactively. etcupdate will attempt to do an updated three-way merge similar to doing a 'cvs update' or 'svn update' and will only generate a conflict requiring manual resolution if the merge generates a conflict. Also, mergemaster -iFU will always prompt the user for input if it encounters a conflict which is not always optimal (imagine scripting an OS upgrade for 100's of machines). etcupdate does not do any prompting until you run 'etcupdate resolve' to resolve conflicts. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201006110815.51061.jhb>