Planning the Fedora 11 Mass Rebuild

[Miloslav Trmač]

Tom Lane píše v Po 23. 02. 2009 v 13:08 -0500:
> Jon Masters <jcm at redhat.com> writes:
> > However, I don't think enough consideration was given to the upgrade
> > path. As I raise on IRC, due to this change rpm will now consider *all*
> > local config files to have been changed by the user and use .rpmnew
> > files at upgrade time. I don't think enough consideration has been given
> > to this, to the impact upon upgrade, or to the need to ensure that
> > everyone doing an upgrade is aware of this.
(This only affects %config, not %config(noreplace).)

> Seems like an RPM bug to me.  Why should a hash change cause a local
> config file to be considered modified?  Surely it's either identical
> to the RPM's file, or not.
If the user has changed a configuration file, rpm needs to know on
upgrade whether the configuration file was changed by the packager
between the two package versions.  The unmodified configuration file for
the old version is no longer available, so rpm can only compare the
hashes.
	Mirek