Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files

[Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>]

On Wednesday 01 June 2011 15:57:58 David W Noon wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:20:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
> 
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >On Tue, 31 May 2011 17:26:43 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> I'll trim my earlier quote down to the salient statement.
> 
> >> >> It
> >> >> removes files that are still in the same state as when the
> >> >> package was emerged, but not those modified by the user.
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't remove *any* files that have been modified,
> >> 
> >> Erm ... that's what I wrote, above.
> >
> >No it's not. You were referring to a special case of the general
> >statement I made.
> 
> I can see no material difference in the two statements in question,
> unless you mean "by the user" is a special case.  By whom else would
> files be modified externally to Portage?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >It's quite simple logic, whether or not you agree with it. If a file is
> >modified, it is no longer the file portage installed, so portage does
> >not uninstall it. If anything, the problem is that the logic used by
> >portage is too simple.
> 
> Yes, that is the way Portage currently works.  But ...
> 
> The contents of the file have been modified, but the file itself is
> still owned by the package.  That's why etc-update, cfg-update, etc.,
> check any new version of the file when the package is upgraded: the
> file is still owned by the package.
> 
> So, when the package is to be removed, the file should also be removed
> if the user has set an option so to do.
> 
> The place where the current logic could be considered valid is when the
> file is an executable.  If an executable has been modified outside of
> Portage then it is likely the user has installed a foreign package or a
> home grown program.  One could argue that it is not the place of
> Portage to remove these.
> 
> >> To repeat myself: I do not see a customized configuration file as
> >> being any more important than a vanilla one.
> >
> >A customised file contains an investment of the user's time, a generic
> >file does not. That investment may be small or great, but it is not
> >for portage to determine that value and remove the file without the
> >user's consent.
> 
> How much is that investment worth when the entire package is being
> deleted?  Remember: we are discussing the COMPLETE DELETION of a
> package, not an upgrade or rebuild.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >We agree on the usefulness of a purge-like option but not on the
> >desirability or otherwise of the current default behaviour
> 
> I called it an "annoyance".  Having to clean up obsolete configuration
> files is just that, unless you can offer a better term.

so - what happens when you uninstall a package to cleanly install it again?

Happens from time to time - and I seriously would not want to see the 
carefully personalized config file be moved to the big blue electron pool in 
heaven.