On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:08 AM, David W Noon <dwn...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 May 2011 21:20:01 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re: > [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files: > >>On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:05:10 +0100, David W Noon wrote: > [snip] >>> The only algorithmic approach with which I would feel comfortable >>> would be if the file were checked against the previous contents of a >>> package and found present, but has disappeared from the new contents >>> of that same package. Even then, I would want manual confirmation. >> >>That omits the most common cause of orphaned files, that the package >>owning it has been unmerged. > > You have just touched on an annoyance of unmerge, in that it does not > clean up configuration files that have been modified. It removes files > that are still in the same state as when the package was emerged, but > not those modified by the user. I don't see how user changes make the > file more important than would be in its vanilla state. > > Perhaps an option to remove (by an unmerge, not etc-update or the > like) these genuinely orphaned files could be set in /etc/make.conf.
The logic appears to be that an unmodified file will be re-instated as-is should the package be re-merged, so nothing changes. A modified config file is more problematic - if the package is re-merged, which version should be used? The old one or the new vanilla one? Presumably the user modified the file last time round for a reason and that reason might still be valid. Only one sensible choice remains - present both files to the human user and ask them to decide. If memory serves, this is in some doc somewhere, I know I read it long ago but don't remember where. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
