On Tuesday 31 May 2011 17:26:43 David W Noon wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:10:01 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re: > > [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files: > >On Mon, 30 May 2011 23:08:08 +0100, David W Noon wrote: > >> 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. > > > >It doesn't remove *any* files that have been modified, > > Erm ... that's what I wrote, above. [That is, of course, predicated on > the assumption that installing Package A will not modify configuration > files owned by Package B, and vice-versa: all post-installation > modifications are performed by the user.] > > >the reasons > >systems used to get cluttered with orphaned .la files. The logic is > >quite simple, if it is not the file portage installed with the > >package, it should not be uninstalled with the package. > > Why should that be so? If the user has modified a configuration file > after the previous installation and then unmerges the package, a repeat > of the configuration changes is all that is required to reinstate it if > the package is removed in its entirety. The user might even be daring > and take a backup of the file(s) in question.
It seems that we have a different appreciation of the user's value of time in editing config files ... > To repeat myself: I do not see a customized configuration file as being > any more important than a vanilla one. If I understand a configuration > file well enough to customize it once, I remain capable of customizing > it again after a reinstall. I would *not* want to have to reconfigure sendmail, apache, mrtg, or umpteen other files from scratch if you don't mind. I probably can't remember what I was doing 3 years ago (or whenever I might have edited them) and the whole ecosystem of keeping things going may be quite fragile to cope with portage doing away with files I had modified, *without* asking me! Yes, I know there are back ups and rsync can be ran so as to not delete old config file back ups, but I find the current set up most convenient and sensible. After all we're talking about a few extra KB for a small number of config files, hardly a space saver these days. However, if we're talking of an additional option for those who want to use it to remove orphan config files, but which offers enough warnings to wake up the user, then I wouldn't of course object to that as long as it was not made the default setting. Personally, unless there is mass demand for such a feature, I think that qfile -o is good enough for this purpose. Anyway, just my 2c's. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
