* Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging
@ 2004-07-13 21:39 99% ` Paul Varner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Paul Varner @ 2004-07-13 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
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
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2004-07-13 20:04 [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and unmerging Phil Richards
2004-07-13 21:39 99% ` Paul Varner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox