> >>> Please: When you run tools which break checksums/dates of the database, > >>> give the user the possibility to decide whether he really wants this. > >> Good point, I didn't realize that. However, I'd rather fix the tool (for > >> example to update the portage database).
> On the other hand, I really wonder how useful the checksums in portage > db really are. It includes config files which are frequently modified. > It also doesn't include config files the administrator has to create. So > for example for verifying system integrity is seems useless to me. > > I'd expect only a limited group of users caring about the checksum > database, and the majority of affected users caring about the update to > "just work" (which running lafilefixer --just-fixit automatically would > buy us). http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/wiki/Gentoo Section "Package Verification Issues" contains one example of why checksums should be consistent.
