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 1QRs66-0001nd-Sg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:32:59 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52C561C043; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:31:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns1.bonedaddy.net (ns1.bonedaddy.net [70.91.141.202]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3EE1C043 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 20:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ns1.bonedaddy.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.bonedaddy.net (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p51K1Fr3004605 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:01:15 -0400 Received: (from tgoodman@localhost) by ns1.bonedaddy.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id p51K1FJP004604 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:01:15 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.bonedaddy.net: tgoodman set sender to tsg@bonedaddy.net using -f Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:01:15 -0400 From: Todd Goodman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files Message-ID: <20110601200115.GI20163@ns1.bonedaddy.net> References: <20110601200016.4e6b5bd5@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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110601200016.4e6b5bd5@karnak.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: b2e2deaaefb78e70dd30e3aa4a98d9d3 * David W Noon [110601 14:41]: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:02 +0200, Todd Goodman wrote about Re: > [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files: > > >What you seem to ignore or miss in the discussion is that an > >emerge -C is necessary at times during an upgrade and rebuild when > >package dependencies are not perfect. > > See my follow-up to Volker Armin Hemmann on this. > -- > Regards, > > Dave [RLU #314465] > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* > dwnoon@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* It's not a rare situation as you imply in that followup and copying off/backing up and then restoring is a lot of busywork and fraught with risk when the current situation works just fine, thank you very much. If the current situation is unacceptable to you, why not create a patch and work to get it approved? Please make it optional with the default being the existing behavior. Todd