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.
