1 |
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:20:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re: |
2 |
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files: |
3 |
|
4 |
>On Tue, 31 May 2011 17:26:43 +0100, David W Noon wrote: |
5 |
|
6 |
I'll trim my earlier quote down to the salient statement. |
7 |
|
8 |
>> >> It |
9 |
>> >> removes files that are still in the same state as when the |
10 |
>> >> package was emerged, but not those modified by the user. |
11 |
|
12 |
>> >It doesn't remove *any* files that have been modified, |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Erm ... that's what I wrote, above. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>No it's not. You were referring to a special case of the general |
17 |
>statement I made. |
18 |
|
19 |
I can see no material difference in the two statements in question, |
20 |
unless you mean "by the user" is a special case. By whom else would |
21 |
files be modified externally to Portage? |
22 |
|
23 |
[snip] |
24 |
>It's quite simple logic, whether or not you agree with it. If a file is |
25 |
>modified, it is no longer the file portage installed, so portage does |
26 |
>not uninstall it. If anything, the problem is that the logic used by |
27 |
>portage is too simple. |
28 |
|
29 |
Yes, that is the way Portage currently works. But ... |
30 |
|
31 |
The contents of the file have been modified, but the file itself is |
32 |
still owned by the package. That's why etc-update, cfg-update, etc., |
33 |
check any new version of the file when the package is upgraded: the |
34 |
file is still owned by the package. |
35 |
|
36 |
So, when the package is to be removed, the file should also be removed |
37 |
if the user has set an option so to do. |
38 |
|
39 |
The place where the current logic could be considered valid is when the |
40 |
file is an executable. If an executable has been modified outside of |
41 |
Portage then it is likely the user has installed a foreign package or a |
42 |
home grown program. One could argue that it is not the place of |
43 |
Portage to remove these. |
44 |
|
45 |
>> To repeat myself: I do not see a customized configuration file as |
46 |
>> being any more important than a vanilla one. |
47 |
> |
48 |
>A customised file contains an investment of the user's time, a generic |
49 |
>file does not. That investment may be small or great, but it is not |
50 |
>for portage to determine that value and remove the file without the |
51 |
>user's consent. |
52 |
|
53 |
How much is that investment worth when the entire package is being |
54 |
deleted? Remember: we are discussing the COMPLETE DELETION of a |
55 |
package, not an upgrade or rebuild. |
56 |
|
57 |
[snip] |
58 |
>We agree on the usefulness of a purge-like option but not on the |
59 |
>desirability or otherwise of the current default behaviour |
60 |
|
61 |
I called it an "annoyance". Having to clean up obsolete configuration |
62 |
files is just that, unless you can offer a better term. |
63 |
-- |
64 |
Regards, |
65 |
|
66 |
Dave [RLU #314465] |
67 |
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* |
68 |
dwnoon@××××××××.com (David W Noon) |
69 |
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* |