From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MxR16-0007yU-W4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:57:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E1E23E08FE; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:57:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from IMPaqm4.telefonica.net (impaqm4.telefonica.net [213.4.129.24]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78529E08FE for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:57:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from IMPmailhost5.adm.correo ([10.20.102.126]) by IMPaqm4.telefonica.net with bizsmtp id rm5n1c01E2jdgqJ3QukRA8; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:44:25 +0200 Received: from jesgue.homelinux.org ([78.136.66.163]) by IMPmailhost5.adm.correo with BIZ IMP id rukG1c00E3XLmEe1lukNEo; Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:44:25 +0200 X-TE-authinfo: authemail="i92guboj.terra.es" |auth_email="i92guboj@terra.es" X-TE-AcuTerraCos: auth_cuTerraCos="cosuitera01" Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:44:14 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jes=C3=BAs_Guerrero?= To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Init systems portage category In-Reply-To: References: <20091012093942.08ef453a@dante> <173442fb4ce538d8895eb52554f0b780@localhost> Message-ID: <13ecafe4c66b8ddaf0c70ef84ecb62b8@localhost> X-Sender: i92guboj@terra.es User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3-stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: c0f4295e-f583-4fa7-9f89-19c6b64ab927 X-Archives-Hash: 711b20ae74d2c1090290bef7264b69b4 On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:52:49 -0400, Robert Bradbury wrote: > I agree with Wyatt's point. >=20 > Wouldn't there be an easy way to reset the last access date on all of the > files to say 1/1/2009 on a system then execute a relatively robust > multi-user boot (and maybe a world emerge upgrade) and record which files > are actually used during that process, then determine which package the= y > belong to and label those with some "level of criticality"? In my opinion, if we really want to speak about a way to implement that kind of snapshoting, we should start thinking about providing a better integration with lvm, from the root. lvm can take care of the snapshots o= n a non-expensive way, and it would be relatively easy to implement. Howeve= r a lot of stuff would need to be re-documented, starting from the handbook= , and the init system. Into my eyes, it's the only serious way to do this at least until btrfs i= s ready for the masses, and there's a long way until we reach that point still. As for the package bits, it's true that the semantic and delimitation about what's part of the system and what isn't, and the mechanism to hand= le some things could be better, but I've grown accustomed to the way it is a= nd I really don't care if that changes or not. --=20 Jes=C3=BAs Guerrero