FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-11-2010, 07:09 PM
Mark Knecht
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files
when making quickpkg files?

Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be
a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone
stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might
be a good reason not to.

If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary
packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to
include everything I could.

What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type user?

Thanks,
Mark
 
Old 02-11-2010, 07:24 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote:
> Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files
> when making quickpkg files?
>
> Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be
> a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone
> stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might
> be a good reason not to.
>
> If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary
> packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to
> include everything I could.
>
> What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type
> user?


The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works.
emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the
thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take priority?
You can always rename them to <name>.bak if you think they might get nuked.

Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory
owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the
tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the originals....

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 02-11-2010, 07:49 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:37:00 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config files
> >> when making quickpkg files?
> >>
> >> Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would be
> >> a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone
> >> stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that might
> >> be a good reason not to.
> >>
> >> If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary
> >> packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to
> >> include everything I could.
> >>
> >> What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop type
> >> user?
> >
> > The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works.
> > emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want the
> > thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they take
> > priority? You can always rename them to <name>.bak if you think they
> > might get nuked.
> >
> > Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a directory
> > owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc. To get to the
> > tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just read the
> > originals....
>
> Thanks Alan. That confirms what I was thinking.
>
> My comment about things getting stolen is that I might burn them to
> DVD for safe keeping in which case anyone can walk off with the DVD.
> I'm not overly worried about that and it's far and away less of an
> issue than getting the machine back to a running state.

OK, I see.

As long as you know which configs have password in them and take precautions,
you should be OK.

For the truly paranoid (and there will be someone who is validly so) another
option is to store /etc in a remote SVN instance that is secured, and not
store configs with the quickpkgs

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:13 PM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:37:00 Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Alan McKinnon
> >> <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 11 February 2010 22:09:28 Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> >> Can someone comment on why I do or do not want to include config
> >> >> files when making quickpkg files?
> >> >>
> >> >> Seems like there is the issue of hand edits being saved which would
> >> >> be a good reason to keep them. I'm not overly worried about someone
> >> >> stealing them and getting access to settings, but I can see that
> >> >> might be a good reason not to.
> >> >>
> >> >> If I don't save them and then after a crash want to use binary
> >> >> packages to get a machine running quickly it seems like I'd want to
> >> >> include everything I could.
> >> >>
> >> >> What would the more experienced user do for the single-user desktop
> >> >> type user?
> >> >
> >> > The config of the package you quickpkg'ed likely works.
> >> > emerge -k is most often used to revert your own mistakes, so you want
> >> > the thing to work. Your latest configs are suspect, why insist they
> >> > take priority? You can always rename them to <name>.bak if you think
> >> > they might get nuked.
> >> >
> >> > Why do you care if someone steals your quickpkgs? Put them in a
> >> > directory owned by root, they are then as safe as your stuff in /etc.
> >> > To get to the tarballs, they must get to a place where they can just
> >> > read the originals....
> >>
> >> Thanks Alan. That confirms what I was thinking.
> >>
> >> My comment about things getting stolen is that I might burn them to
> >> DVD for safe keeping in which case anyone can walk off with the DVD.
> >> I'm not overly worried about that and it's far and away less of an
> >> issue than getting the machine back to a running state.
> >
> > OK, I see.
> >
> > As long as you know which configs have password in them and take
> > precautions, you should be OK.
> >
> > For the truly paranoid (and there will be someone who is validly so)
> > another option is to store /etc in a remote SVN instance that is
> > secured, and not store configs with the quickpkgs
>
> Thanks. Like I said originally I'm not worried about it but at least
> you understood why I asked.
>
> One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get
> the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command
> line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right
> way automatically?
>
> - Mark

when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited configs
as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by you.
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:32 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:57 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:

> One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get
> the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command
> line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right
> way automatically?

You can't, because buildpkg builds the package before installation (it
actually builds the package and then installs from it) so it only
contains the default configs. That shouldn't be an issue if you
backup /etc regularly.


--
Neil Bothwick

Copy from another: plagiarism. Copy from many: research.
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:33 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get
> > the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command
> > line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right
> > way automatically?
> >
> >
> >
> > - Mark
>
> when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited
> configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by
> you.

Just checking something:

We are all aware of the difference between

emerge --buildpkg

and

quickpkg

right/

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 02-11-2010, 09:56 PM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get
> > > the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command
> > > line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right
> > > way automatically?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Mark
> >
> > when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited
> > configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by
> > you.
>
> Just checking something:
>
> We are all aware of the difference between
>
> emerge --buildpkg
>
> and
>
> quickpkg
>
> right/

I am. Not sure Mark is
 
Old 02-11-2010, 10:32 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Friday 12 February 2010 00:56:04 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Donnerstag 11 Februar 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > > One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get
> > > > the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command
> > > > line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right
> > > > way automatically?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - Mark
> > >
> > > when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited
> > > configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by
> > > you.
> >
> > Just checking something:
> >
> > We are all aware of the difference between
> >
> > emerge --buildpkg
> >
> > and
> >
> > quickpkg
> >
> > right/
>
> I am. Not sure Mark is

I am too. At least I am now.

(I had to refresh the man page cache in my head first)

:-)


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
 
Old 02-11-2010, 10:45 PM
Volker Armin Hemmann
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Freitag 12 Februar 2010, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Friday 12 February 2010 00:13:23 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >> > One thing I haven't found so far is what to put in make.conf to get
> >> > the buildpkg feature to include the configs. It's easy at the command
> >> > line. Where's the documentation on how to actually use this the right
> >> > way automatically?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - Mark
> >>
> >> when you use buildpkg feature the packages contain the virgin unedited
> >> configs as they are installed by the package and not any edits done by
> >> you.
> >
> > Just checking something:
> >
> > We are all aware of the difference between
> >
> > emerge --buildpkg
> >
> > and
> >
> > quickpkg
> >
> > right/
> >
> > --
> > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
>
> Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking
> about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command
>
> quickpkg --include-configs
>
> says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I
> Alan) were talking about.
>
> On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the
> FEATURES="buildpkg" (which is what I think Neil is speaking about)
> gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't.
>
> If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do
> that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience
> I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just
> tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come
> later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-)
>
> - Mark

when you use quickpkg it package up all the files belonging to the package as
they are installed in your system. If you edited the configs (or any other file)
the edited version ends in the tarball.

with buildpkg the package is created before the files are copied into the
filesystem. Config files included in the tarball are 'virgin'.

buildpkg is 'cleaner' because you get everything as it is installed. If you
want to save your configs - well, regular backups of /etc is always a smart
choice.
 
Old 02-12-2010, 12:36 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Upside/downside to including config files in quickpkg?

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:39:48 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:

> Volker is. I am not sure I am and I'm not sure that Neil was talking
> about quickpkg which is what I am using so far. The command
>
> quickpkg --include-configs
>
> says it includes the configs. That's what I thought we (you and I
> Alan) were talking about.
>
> On the other hand I presumed (apparently incorrectly) that the
> FEATURES="buildpkg" (which is what I think Neil is speaking about)
> gave me the same option but I now guess it doesn't.

I was talking about the difference between quickpkg and buildpkg in
response to your statement "One thing I haven't found so far is what to
put in make.conf to get the buildpkg feature to include the configs."

So, yes, I was aware of the difference, and the reason why they behave
differently. Buildpkg has to work with the files before they are
installed, otherwise --buildpkgonly wouldn't work.

> If I need to use quickpkg to save the configs then I think I'll do
> that being that as I simple-minded home user with no admin experience
> I have no in-place rigorous methods for doing __any__ backups. I just
> tar up directories once in awhile and deal with the problems that come
> later. (If they come...when they come...they do come, don't they?) ;-)

What's wrong with a cron job to tar up /etc once per day? There are more
sophisticated solutions, but tar does the job and can save you much grief.


--
Neil Bothwick

Hello, this is an extension to the famous signature virus, called spymail.
Could you please copy me into your signature and send back what you were
doing last night between 10pm and 3am?
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org