From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B761381F3 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 721FC21C02C; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16356E049A for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:03:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0495033DC1A for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c50so756740eek.40 for ; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:03:06 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.14.205.65 with SMTP id i41mr89193264eeo.2.1352952186351; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.75.137 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:03:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1351845745.32519.0@numa-i> References: <1351782954.15954.0@numa-i> <1351845745.32519.0@numa-i> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:03:06 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] qfile alternative? From: Mike Gilbert To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 70432147-3241-4adf-96ff-ad7b0943d1a2 X-Archives-Hash: ad33dc1fe1df8d04d54a5c6b7a377a1c On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > On 11/02/2012 12:57:24 AM, James Cloos wrote: > > Many thanks, James. > Since app-portage/portage-utils is a portage specific package, it would be > nice if it would take > all portage actions (like eselect) into account. > > >> >> You might want to open an RFE bug report for app-portage/portage-utils >> suggesting that qfile gain the ability to do the (the logical equivilent >> of) the above itself. > > > I've tried that, but the reponsible developer doesn't want to understand > (even an advanced) user's need. > Helmut. > I would not want qfile to report on files (including symlinks) which are not recorded in the /var/db/pkg database. That's simply not what the tool is designed for. eselect is not part of portage, and it can create/change literally any file on your system. There is no central place where these changes are tracked, so any attempt to make qfile aware of it would be unreliable.