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 1QRIMw-0005ZR-Fq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 May 2011 06:23:58 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EDF501C04C; Tue, 31 May 2011 06:22:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0531C00D for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 06:22:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywl2 with SMTP id 2so2378906ywl.40 for ; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:22:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rLjFS75uNiJtoza6rO3ZHYoXpBm0nLwctWPxk+Zyo0g=; b=ryRSy+vX+ob1ukXRZnsLVd79KAp17PfpyU/2Bi3Iop1iXCNMFbmBGzv68JuU24PrwK wPv59NpqYMHAYILPmv7Cdfh0BFRIA2qSlRWtml3P9d08eff4ACPruK/X1Cmd22yYRjF9 YhK3ce6J1eZFGkk/yNvsep5wI91q29etWNxYo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oVMCigKGyAQuCvDhAxsccytu8n5AQ70imlkHpZRte0ybc8x+uQ52MYufNR6vLQ7NOL SEGjx4xee7nCfTZnZY5xrTV28IfYFjkt1iWfDk36vToEewvWhIbZKG4ilx1tJnee5C8w /ldd9/c0qwUJ0HNNMoM7T1LESM8X8ZpbaVmNk= Received: by 10.150.31.19 with SMTP id e19mr4627348ybe.205.1306822949228; Mon, 30 May 2011 23:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-98-95-108-236.jan.bellsouth.net [98.95.108.236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c35sm3771144anp.11.2011.05.30.23.22.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 May 2011 23:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DE48922.4090206@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 01:22:26 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110517 Gentoo/2.0.14 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files References: <20110530230808.41ecb29a@karnak.local> <4DE45285.2020907@gmail.com> <87wrh7whyr.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <87wrh7whyr.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 2bf716d2ad0b5f596fe656db1bf5b238 Graham Murray wrote: > Dale writes: > > >> There are times that if portage removed a config file, I would not be >> happy. Sometimes I unmerge a package then remerge but want to keep >> the config files. >> >> Would I like there to be the option, yep, I sure would. There are >> also times when I want to get rid of a package and all its config >> files. The option would be nice but it should be a option. >> > I think that the ideal would be if portage could set some kind of > 'marker' so that etc-update, dispatch-conf etc could prompt the user as > to whether to keep or remove the orphaned file. > > That would work and may even be better. Either way, keeping unneeded config files out would be good. We got tools to clean out everything else so may as well have that too. Now getting someone to come up with one, that could be interesting for sure. Since portage has so many options already, I wonder what letter it would get? Are there even any good ones left. Maybe it would be a number like oneshot. o_O Dale :-) :-)