Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul Varner <gentoo-dev@××××××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:39:53
Message-Id: 1089754778.28380.19.camel@beldin.local.domain
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging by Phil Richards
1 On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 15:04, Phil Richards wrote:
2 > I raised bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56664
3 > after a cron job was left behind in /etc/cron.daily following
4 > an unmerge. I basically agree with the conclusion (WONTFIX)
5 > but it got me thinking:
6 >
7 > Should portage have a "should be deleted" marker for CONFIG_PROTECTed
8 > files?
9 >
10 > It seems odd that there is no indication left behind for
11 > etc-update (or dispatch-conf) that a config file has been removed.
12 > These tools could then offer deletion (or even auto-delete if
13 > the file is known to be the one that got installed).
14 >
15 > Is there a show-stopper that makes such functionality a "bad thing"?
16 > i.e., have I missed something?
17
18 I personally would like to have the functionality in bug# 43066
19 <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43066> implemented as an option
20 to emerge.
21
22 However, since I can achieve the same behavior through using 'env
23 CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" emerge unmerge package' I'm not that vocal about it.
24
25 Regards,
26 Paul
27
28 --
29 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list