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 1QRVaV-0002Nu-QE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:30:52 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E251B1C196; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963551C196 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 20:29:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so4929285wyi.40 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:29:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=nYMt6xd5LKYlPyPVYOeACRaRcLOX7ljt5z5iVyN6/HQ=; b=oZgvvGPLZ3QffFYk0vJzXUUNEjDti2+0drSqX70FCbFaulWslNcAlV0q6PkwYTFcCp 4Y1H6WNdaqxoIhCHP5wukc6VAGGId9JURzWR+u8ZOLf1JkIh9EXLRqRO8pvoQ8ygUrFK jZEAJHB5rQkjjG+mPXSQ3Eob9Q23G6qLyHOtU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=EN+4bgK+jWCy4/prR3R3CzqHYk82DzaRSqd4BAQWUh+YmEJfScM96nXqnKFurkUffP THbEW0R/3GioDvRA1d8kejRn/EUMmf4W/u47wi9cQhBnT9/BjIu5AcpysWzyUOHEZTUy kYbtQriSLwZatr7tVZxa1p+YZGIh5hbgGSfdE= Received: by 10.216.229.3 with SMTP id g3mr3990348weq.91.1306873745357; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t79sm257234weq.5.2011.05.31.13.29.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 May 2011 13:29:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 21:29:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) References: <20110531172643.6526f19f@karnak.local> In-Reply-To: <20110531172643.6526f19f@karnak.local> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart38447582.EXXCIj84B7"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105312129.42698.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 580d7536dfdab45258a8328449575667 --nextPart38447582.EXXCIj84B7 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 31 May 2011 17:26:43 David W Noon wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:10:01 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re: >=20 > [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files: > >On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:08:08 +0100, David W Noon wrote: > >> You have just touched on an annoyance of unmerge, in that it does not > >> clean up configuration files that have been modified. It removes > >> files that are still in the same state as when the package was > >> emerged, but not those modified by the user. I don't see how user > >> changes make the file more important than would be in its vanilla > >> state. > > > >It doesn't remove *any* files that have been modified, >=20 > Erm ... that's what I wrote, above. [That is, of course, predicated on > the assumption that installing Package A will not modify configuration > files owned by Package B, and vice-versa: all post-installation > modifications are performed by the user.] >=20 > >the reasons > >systems used to get cluttered with orphaned .la files. The logic is > >quite simple, if it is not the file portage installed with the > >package, it should not be uninstalled with the package. >=20 > Why should that be so? If the user has modified a configuration file > after the previous installation and then unmerges the package, a repeat > of the configuration changes is all that is required to reinstate it if > the package is removed in its entirety. The user might even be daring > and take a backup of the file(s) in question. It seems that we have a different appreciation of the user's value of time = in=20 editing config files ... > To repeat myself: I do not see a customized configuration file as being > any more important than a vanilla one. If I understand a configuration > file well enough to customize it once, I remain capable of customizing > it again after a reinstall. I would *not* want to have to reconfigure sendmail, apache, mrtg, or umptee= n=20 other files from scratch if you don't mind. I probably can't remember what= I=20 was doing 3 years ago (or whenever I might have edited them) and the whole= =20 ecosystem of keeping things going may be quite fragile to cope with portage= =20 doing away with files I had modified, *without* asking me! Yes, I know there are back ups and rsync can be ran so as to not delete old= =20 config file back ups, but I find the current set up most convenient and =20 sensible. After all we're talking about a few extra KB for a small number = of=20 config files, hardly a space saver these days. However, if we're talking of an additional option for those who want to use= it=20 to remove orphan config files, but which offers enough warnings to wake up = the=20 user, then I wouldn't of course object to that as long as it was not made t= he=20 default setting. Personally, unless there is mass demand for such a featur= e,=20 I think that qfile -o is good enough for this purpose. Anyway, just my 2c's. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart38447582.EXXCIj84B7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk3lT7YACgkQVTDTR3kpaLYAAgCg7ra9sS8B7SjPe/IboFoKkcFd vqUAoOGeqL0n5IVL2uTKBF9SmLas43EP =iIig -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart38447582.EXXCIj84B7--