[gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging

[gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging

[Phil Richards]

I raised bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56664
after a cron job was left behind in /etc/cron.daily following
an unmerge.  I basically agree with the conclusion (WONTFIX)
but it got me thinking:

Should portage have a "should be deleted" marker for CONFIG_PROTECTed
files?

It seems odd that there is no indication left behind for
etc-update (or dispatch-conf) that a config file has been removed.
These tools could then offer deletion (or even auto-delete if
the file is known to be the one that got installed).

Is there a show-stopper that makes such functionality a "bad thing"?
i.e., have I missed something?

phil
-- 
change name before "@" to "phil" for email


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging

[Paul Varner]

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 15:04, Phil Richards wrote:
> I raised bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56664
> after a cron job was left behind in /etc/cron.daily following
> an unmerge.  I basically agree with the conclusion (WONTFIX)
> but it got me thinking:
> 
> Should portage have a "should be deleted" marker for CONFIG_PROTECTed
> files?
> 
> It seems odd that there is no indication left behind for
> etc-update (or dispatch-conf) that a config file has been removed.
> These tools could then offer deletion (or even auto-delete if
> the file is known to be the one that got installed).
> 
> Is there a show-stopper that makes such functionality a "bad thing"?
> i.e., have I missed something?

I personally would like to have the functionality in bug# 43066
<http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43066>  implemented as an option
to emerge.  

However, since I can achieve the same behavior through using 'env
CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" emerge unmerge package' I'm not that vocal about it.

Regards,
Paul

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging

[Alan Schmitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

* Phil Richards (news@derived-software.ltd.uk) wrote:
> I raised bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56664
> after a cron job was left behind in /etc/cron.daily following
> an unmerge.  I basically agree with the conclusion (WONTFIX)
> but it got me thinking:
> 
> Should portage have a "should be deleted" marker for CONFIG_PROTECTed
> files?
> 
> It seems odd that there is no indication left behind for
> etc-update (or dispatch-conf) that a config file has been removed.
> These tools could then offer deletion (or even auto-delete if
> the file is known to be the one that got installed).
> 
> Is there a show-stopper that makes such functionality a "bad thing"?
> i.e., have I missed something?

This would be a great feature. I think that Gentoo has a great 
configuration management approach (well, better than any other distro 
I've tried), but this would make a nice addition.

Alan Schmitt

-- 
The hacker: someone who figured things out and made something cool happen.
.O.
..O
OOO

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1697 bytes --]

At 2004-07-14T09:45:16+0200, Alan Schmitt <alan.schmitt@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> * Phil Richards (news@derived-software.ltd.uk) wrote:
> > I raised bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56664
> > after a cron job was left behind in /etc/cron.daily following
> > an unmerge.  I basically agree with the conclusion (WONTFIX)
> > but it got me thinking:
> > 
> > Should portage have a "should be deleted" marker for CONFIG_PROTECTed
> > files?
> > 
> > It seems odd that there is no indication left behind for
> > etc-update (or dispatch-conf) that a config file has been removed.
> > These tools could then offer deletion (or even auto-delete if
> > the file is known to be the one that got installed).
> > 
> > Is there a show-stopper that makes such functionality a "bad thing"?
> > i.e., have I missed something?
> 
> This would be a great feature. I think that Gentoo has a great 
> configuration management approach (well, better than any other distro 
> I've tried), but this would make a nice addition.

The two show-stoppers I can think of:
	1. Where would we leave that kind of information?
	2. What happens when multiple packages own a single file?

I know that point #2 is effectively solved by several devs who rabidly
believe that multiple packages owning a single file is a bug, but maybe
there's a better way...

As far as point #1, how about dropping ._meta????_filename files when
special actions need to be taken, such as deleting or changing
permissions of  CONFIG_PROTECTed files.

-- 
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"?
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action.
  --Ghost in the Shell

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]