On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 06:49:07PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> /proc, though...... that one might more awkward to protect. Those are
>> nominally "files". Has anyone reviewed trying to protect /proc, or in
>> the case I mentioned /var/named/chroot/proc, from misapplied patches?
> I don't think it's worth adding a special-case for that.
> Again, while your /var/named/chroot/proc directory might be versioned
> (if you're versioning the chroot jail in SVN), any files or directories
> within it will be unversioned, and thus ignored by 'svn patch'. Unless
> you add files from the mounted proc file system to svn. And that is a
> very stupid thing to do.
I think that you're right it's not worth adding a special case: it is
a case where special care with svn:ignore" is required to avoid
surprises and confusion, and where you need to pay attention to "svn
import" options. And while I like to think that *I'm* not that stupid,
I know plenty of inexperienced admins who are due for tragic errors,
such as doing an "svn import" on /var/named/chroot and not paying
Received on 2011-11-07 13:07:16 CET