1 |
Am 30.05.2011 20:05, schrieb David W Noon: |
2 |
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:10:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re: |
3 |
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 15:48:15 +0100, David W Noon wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>>> How does the tool of choice determine if a file is redundant or not? |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> Just because a configuration file is not associated with a Portage |
10 |
>>> package [any more] does not necessarily mean it is redundant. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> No, but it indicates the file warrants a closer look as it may be |
13 |
>> orphaned. qfile is my tool of choice for this, it only list files and |
14 |
>> deletes nothing. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Indeed, I would be very wary of any tool that automatically deleted a |
17 |
> configuration file without backing it up. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> The only algorithmic approach with which I would feel comfortable would |
20 |
> be if the file were checked against the previous contents of a package |
21 |
> and found present, but has disappeared from the new contents of that |
22 |
> same package. Even then, I would want manual confirmation. |
23 |
|
24 |
This might also be one of the few cases where atime might be of |
25 |
interest. If the file has not been accessed in the last complete |
26 |
power-on/power-off cycle, chances are no application depends on it. |
27 |
|
28 |
Of course, even then there are lots of false positives, for example |
29 |
everything in /etc/skel |
30 |
|
31 |
Regards, |
32 |
Florian Philipp |