| 1 |
On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:05:10 +0100, David W Noon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> Just because a configuration file is not associated with a Portage |
| 4 |
> >> package [any more] does not necessarily mean it is redundant. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >No, but it indicates the file warrants a closer look as it may be |
| 7 |
> >orphaned. qfile is my tool of choice for this, it only list files and |
| 8 |
> >deletes nothing. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Indeed, I would be very wary of any tool that automatically deleted a |
| 11 |
> configuration file without backing it up. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The only algorithmic approach with which I would feel comfortable would |
| 14 |
> be if the file were checked against the previous contents of a package |
| 15 |
> and found present, but has disappeared from the new contents of that |
| 16 |
> same package. Even then, I would want manual confirmation. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That omits the most common cause of orphaned files, that the package |
| 19 |
owning it has been unmerged. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
A friend in need may turn out to be a nuisance. |
Archives