Why /etc/rc.d/rc.local.new?
by enorbet from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5DFNN)
It applies to a few others but I really don't get it why a conf file like rc.local, designed for personal customization, is ever at risk to be replaced by a file that hasn't changed in years. Not only can it waste a few minutes of time but things like this, IMHO, make it non-trivial to decide whether or not to allow overwriting or even pick one of the four options, if you're using slackpkg, when dealing with en masse .new files. It's not like they are even listed. It is a disruption in work flow to me.
So my question is why aren't .new files limited to only those with either substantial and important changes or that only have to do with base system function? IMHO, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply.
Yes this is a very minor issue but with the vast increase in frequency of updates in Current as we approach Final Release, it seems a worthy disconnect that's easy to fix to me, and it demonstrates respect and concern for other's work....
or.... I could just be getting grumpier in my old age :D
So my question is why aren't .new files limited to only those with either substantial and important changes or that only have to do with base system function? IMHO, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply.
Yes this is a very minor issue but with the vast increase in frequency of updates in Current as we approach Final Release, it seems a worthy disconnect that's easy to fix to me, and it demonstrates respect and concern for other's work....
or.... I could just be getting grumpier in my old age :D