On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 12:16:31PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:48:09 -0400, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: > >> I didn't say RPM *doesn't* deal with changed files; I said ours deals > >> with it better. I stand by that. > > > >Sure; and an rpm or emerge user'll tell you that dpkg is inferior > >because an interactive upgrade's a crazy thing to do. > > Debian is about choice. You can choose to reinstall or to upgrade. You > don't have that choice in the RHEL world.
In real world, this means you end up with RHEL servers all over the place that lost their security support a decade ago. I on the other hand have a potato install (currently in a lxc container but still doing its work) and a testing/sarge install still in mostly-original machine, already on stretch. Reinstalling everything on a server is costly, thus it's no surprise it's postponed indefinitely while that server appears to work fine. No conffile handling is a smaller version of this: you either leave the old, wrong and likely insecure config untouched, or need to rewrite it from scratch. That's hardly better than reinstalling. The only "benefit" I see is that the RPM way is less work for the maintainer. Meow! -- Don't be racist. White, amber or black, all beers should be judged based solely on their merits. Heck, even if occasionally a cider applies for a beer's job, why not? On the other hand, corpo lager is not a race.
