1 |
Graham Murray wrote: |
2 |
> Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> writes: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> There are times that if portage removed a config file, I would not be |
6 |
>> happy. Sometimes I unmerge a package then remerge but want to keep |
7 |
>> the config files. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> Would I like there to be the option, yep, I sure would. There are |
10 |
>> also times when I want to get rid of a package and all its config |
11 |
>> files. The option would be nice but it should be a option. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
> I think that the ideal would be if portage could set some kind of |
14 |
> 'marker' so that etc-update, dispatch-conf etc could prompt the user as |
15 |
> to whether to keep or remove the orphaned file. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
That would work and may even be better. Either way, keeping unneeded |
20 |
config files out would be good. We got tools to clean out everything |
21 |
else so may as well have that too. Now getting someone to come up with |
22 |
one, that could be interesting for sure. |
23 |
|
24 |
Since portage has so many options already, I wonder what letter it would |
25 |
get? Are there even any good ones left. Maybe it would be a number |
26 |
like oneshot. o_O |
27 |
|
28 |
Dale |
29 |
|
30 |
:-) :-) |