3 ms·
But the distinction is useful because it paves the way for something everyone wants, which is seamless upgrades without user intervention. The fewer places the
by kchoudhu 6y ago
But the distinction is useful because it paves the way for something everyone wants, which is seamless upgrades without user intervention. The fewer places the user touches something, the fewer decision points the upgrade process has to deal with.
- magicalhippo 6y agoIndeed. I was thinking about this just yesterday, when I upgraded my KDE Neon install. I was asked about keeping or merging a conf file I was unsure what was for, and that I can't recall having edited. It's possible I did modify the conf file, in a late-night attempt to fix some issue long ago, but that was all forgotten by now. The changes to the conf file were extensive, and I had no idea what were _my_ changes, assuming I had indeed done any changes, vs what was just changes due to the new version. Why couldn't my change in etc just be a one-liner? Then the OS could upgrade the base conf file safely, and simply inform me that I need to review my conf override in etc to see if it was still valid or needed. This way the upgrade tool could potentially be even smarter as it can clearly distinguish what has been changed, so it can warn even more loudly when a configuration variable has been removed or drastically changed for example.
- enriquto 6y agoMy point exactly. These scripts can be easily edited to suit their behaviour to my system. They are then legit configuration files. Whether they are executable or plain data is inconsequential.