[SM-Discuss] protected and files under /usr/share/www
eric at sandall.us
Sun Aug 10 17:22:59 EDT 2008
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 14:32:53 -0500
David Kowis <dkowis at shlrm.org> wrote:
> You could simply move the files after doing the update. So that
> they're no longer managed by sorcery. Oh, wait, that's almost exactly
> what you're proposing...
> There's no good way to go about doing this, except for using xen and a
> development server ;)
> or virtualbox as a development server.
> FWIW, I think that's the "correct" way to go about doing things. If
> you upgrade stuff on a production server without testing, it's going
> to go badly.
> That's my opinion. I don't think we need to change it so that things
> aren't tracked anymore. I think that's a horrible idea. Website
> asplodage is purely an administrative mistake, IMHO, which can be
> trivially avoided with a bit of time and virtualbox (or xen).
You misunderstand, I *want* the files to still be tracked, hence using
protected, not excluded (which also didn't work ;)). You don't have to
use the spells for web apps, but for those of us that do, I want them
to work and not wipe out working installs. If I use `mv`, the files are
no longer tracked (bad) *and* it wipes out the files if you're
re-installing the same version (for some reason), which is why we use
install_www_files. Yes, you should test on a dev box, but even on that
dev box my work would have been wiped out, which isn't what we want. ;)
We want spells to be as non-destructive as possible, not like those
flashy Wizards in the movies. :p
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric at sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | http://counter.li.org/ #196285
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20080810/9ad1ba49/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss