-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Daniel Drake wrote:
> Sven Köhler wrote:
>> Have you ever thought about sollutions of that problem? It's not a real
>> problem, that these files are orphaned - but they are neither removed
>> nor renamed, so they stay in place and in one or the other w
Sven Köhler wrote:
Have you ever thought about sollutions of that problem? It's not a real
problem, that these files are orphaned - but they are neither removed
nor renamed, so they stay in place and in one or the other way, they may
start to disturb.
Wasn't portage modified to remove unmodifie
Sven Köhler kirjoitti:
> Hi,
>
> i had some orphaned files in /etc/udev/rules.d. Namely 40-fuse.rules and
> 60-fuse.rules.
>
> The files were never removed, since they are protected - aren't they?
>
Yeah config protected files are never removed. That is the whole point
of configuration file pr
Sven Köhler napsal(a):
> The files were never removed, since they are protected - aren't they?
> Anyway, this really asks for a sollution.
Feel free to solve Bug 8423 then... ;)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8423
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG signature:
Hi,
i had some orphaned files in /etc/udev/rules.d. Namely 40-fuse.rules and
60-fuse.rules.
The files were never removed, since they are protected - aren't they?
So that is _very_, _very_ unpractical, because the older your gentoo
gets, the more of such orphaned files you get.
Have you ever th
