| 1 |
Hello Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> There is a equery command for that... equery check if memory serves. |
| 4 |
> But I issued this command some days ago and it always reports some |
| 5 |
> files as different... so I guess it is normal for one or two files out |
| 6 |
> of 1000 in a package to be modified without Portage knowing... but I |
| 7 |
> want to know about the packages that were modified *because of the |
| 8 |
> corruption.*, not the ones that were modified because of other |
| 9 |
> reasons... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
That should be fairly easy to tell by looking at the list. Binary files |
| 12 |
should not file the test, but data and configuration files may. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Too bad it does not apply to files not managed by Portage. |
| 15 |
> Hum, perhaps I should have made checksums of my personal data? |
| 16 |
> Obviously, nothing substitutes a backup, but for data that is not worth |
| 17 |
> backing up (because it is huge - thus costly to back up - and I can |
| 18 |
> withstand a small chance of losing said data, since I can obtain it |
| 19 |
> again; a rip of a DVD movie for example) I could at least save |
| 20 |
> checksums, so if the file gets corrupted, at least I'll know... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That's why I keep this sort of data on a separate filesystem from home. I |
| 23 |
already have backups of my music and video collection, the original |
| 24 |
discs, but things like work, accounts and emails need to be backed up |
| 25 |
regularly. Excluding replaceable data from /home makes the backup process |
| 26 |
much easier. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity. |
Archives