RPM package verification failures on configuration files causes bcfg2 to reinstall package

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0s7RDAZJqmy8qhaS8PFtgoke6VxxZKSI]

Hello,

For packages that have configuration files (specifically %config(noreplace) config files), when Bcfg2 runs in non-quick mode, Bcfg2 marks the package as needing a reinstall when a config file fails verification. When it reinstalls the package, it doesn't replace the file, because the package marks it as %config(noreplace). So, next time Bcfg2 runs, it will continue to mark the package as needing to be reinstalled. The only solution is to mark every config file as "ignored" Path entries.

Ideally, Bcfg2 should ignore files that are config files (or at least, %config(noreplace) config files, if that's possible) when evaluating which packages need to be reinstalled. This would match standard RPM/Yum behavior.

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0s7RDAZJqmy8qhaS8PFtgoke6VxxZKSI]

Possible fix for this behavior

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0s7RDAZJqmy8qhaS8PFtgoke6VxxZKSI]

A better patch that covers a more limited set of changes

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0s7RDAZJqmy8qhaS8PFtgoke6VxxZKSI]

I submitted a patch that only ignores changed config files if their size, checksum, mode or ownership differ. I'm testing it now.

[solj]

Replying to https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0s7RDAZJqmy8qhaS8PFtgoke6VxxZKSI:

I submitted a patch that only ignores changed config files if their size, checksum, mode or ownership differ. I'm testing it now.

Were you ever able to verify whether or not this works?

[https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn0s7RDAZJqmy8qhaS8PFtgoke6VxxZKSI]

I had the package in testing, but I've since upgraded to newer releases without the patch. I'll rebase and build a new package for testing.