| 1 |
On 08/30/2017 10:24 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/30/2017 10:10 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I wonder though, per the original idea, wouldn't it make more sense to |
| 5 |
>> allow uninstallation to continue and just very verbosely |
| 6 |
>> warn/log/document what the package removal didn't do, so that it can |
| 7 |
>> be done later by hand as needed? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> My gut feeling is "no," but who knows. Would you want --depclean to |
| 11 |
> delete a user who owns files on your system without some prompt? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Ugh, nevermind -- my response is nonsense now that I re-read what you |
| 14 |
asked. I think I've been waking up too early. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The downside to removing the package but not actually removing the user |
| 17 |
is that you no longer have an accurate record of which users portage |
| 18 |
installed for you. That list of no-longer-necessary-but-still-present |
| 19 |
users is like a TODO list for people to keep their systems clean. |
| 20 |
Keeping a bunch of unused system accounts -- some with shell access -- |
| 21 |
is its own risk. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Right now my /etc/passwd contains 29 lines, and I don't know which ones |
| 24 |
I can delete. I think it's a nice feature if we can remedy that; running |
| 25 |
--depclean would tell me which users are no longer needed, and after |
| 26 |
I've cleaned up their files, I could userdel them and force portage to |
| 27 |
uninstall the associated packages. |
Archives