Re: [gentoo-dev] Clarify log message?

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 14/01/13 10:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>> OK i'm a little confused.  Putting my earlier note aside, if
>>> the symlink will be auto-cleaned after no packages use it,
>>> what's the point/need for the original message from portage
>>> then??  Is it just QA for the ebuild maintainer?
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are a number of different possible
>> scenarios. It may serve as QA for the ebuild maintainer. It may
>> be triggered by a symlink that the sysadmin has manually created.
>> In any case, there's a performance penalty, since portage has to
>> search for other packages that installed files underneath the
>> symlink. The performance penalty can be avoided for a given
>> symlink by adding it to UNINSTALL_IGNORE (which makes the message
>> useful, regardless of where the symlink originated from).
>
> You can measure the performance penalty for the /var/run symlink
> by running this command:
>
> time portageq owners / /var/run
>

Based on the performance penalty, would it make sense then for
system-managed symlinks like /var/run that it would be automatically
added to
UNINSTALL_IGNORE and its removal managed separately by whatever put it
there in the first place??

(and additionally, that the warning wouldn't be presented to end-users
because of it being a system-managed migration symlink instead of a
end-user-managed one)?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlD0McYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPADjgD8D1nRkHqYNQLwtfb43X5QwAFI
V9EM0yqdOWX9zI98+tABAJS5KTiZkejCVwK9Ord0VRtkyGVkGgZ+HDBvuOJHsIUA
=3+S4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----