Quoth Philip Hazel on Thu, Sep 13, 2001:
> 1. Instead of copying the binary as "exim", copy it into the bin
> directory as "exim-4.xx#n". (The #n is the compile number.) If there is
> an existing exim-4.xx#n it will be overwritten unless is it newer than
> the new file.
I'm for it, but you know it already. I would just suggest using
another character instead of '#', because it's used for comments
in shells.
> 2. If there is no "exim" in the bin directory, create a symbolic link
> from "exim" to the new binary.
We do this by hand, but it's a good idea to do it automagically.
> 3. If "exim" _is_ in the bin directory, and is a symbolic link, move it
> to point to the new binary. This can be done atomically, by
>
> ln -s temp exim-4.xx
> mv -f temp exim
Reasonable.
> 4. If "exim" is in the bin directory and is not a symbolic link, run it
> to find its version number, and rename it as "exim-x.xx#n". Then create a
> symbolic link to the new version.
Too hard, IMO. Maybe it's better just to shout at the user in
this case.
> A consequence of this is that old versions will accumulate in the bin
> directory and will need manually removing from time to time. I don't see
> this as a huge problem.
No, not a huge problem. We do it by hand all the time...
> For binaries other than "exim" itself, I am proposing no change.
Sounds like a good plan.
Vadik.
--
Prof: So the American government went to IBM to come up with a data
encryption standard and they came up with ...
Student: EBCDIC!
