| 1 |
On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 08:59 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > gentoo-x86/profiles/updates $ LANG=C ls -1 --sort=time |
| 5 |
> > [long list omitted] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > old entries are done in different context (comparing to 2012): |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > - some packages change names 2 or 3 times |
| 10 |
> > - slots have different meaning |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > moreover: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > - if you set your PORTDIR to different directory you'll get all |
| 15 |
> > that full update. And will break the system. Old profile entries |
| 16 |
> > used to break eclass-manpages and latex-base (due to double |
| 17 |
> > renaming) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's worse: Bad entries in the old files may go unnoticed for a long |
| 20 |
> time. But if such a file is updated for whatever reason, it will be |
| 21 |
> reprocessed on users' systems, including any bad entries contained in |
| 22 |
> it. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> > Thus the reason for removal is simple: old entries are potentially |
| 25 |
> > buggy as nobody verifies them. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I wouldn't even know how to verify them. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Let's remove that cruft. We can be extra conservative and keep five |
| 30 |
> years of backlog (i.e. everything from before 2008 would be removed |
| 31 |
> now). |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Ulrich |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
OK, that seems to be some very good reasons to tree-clean them. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
What's our next step? |
| 39 |
Tree-cleaners, does this fall into your department? |
| 40 |
Or should I prepare a list of files and/or updates to clean? |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
Archives