On 3 June 2011, at 16:54, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ...
> Well, thank you for speaking your mind. Very few people do that.
>
> Is the issue now dealt with so we can move on?
I guess so. You asked, I answered. I don't think I've got anything else to say
on the subject. Nuff respect to you for your
David W Noon wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:00:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
There is a simple rule in computing:
NEVER remove user created data
That is utter rubbish. Obsolete data can be dangerous, so once
Nobody wants portage to delete modified config files. Some people might
think they do, but they don't: they just don't know it yet.
See also: condoms, seatbelts.
On Friday 03 June 2011 15:52:25 David W Noon wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:00:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
>
> Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >There is a simple rule in computing:
> >
> >NEVER remove user created data
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:20:02 +0200, Bill Longman wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On 06/03/2011 07:52 AM, David W Noon wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:00:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
>> Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant conf
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:52 on Friday 03 June 2011, David W Noon did
opine thusly:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:00:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
>
> Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >There is a simple rule in computing:
> >
On 06/03/2011 07:52 AM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:00:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
> Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>
>> There is a simple rule in computing:
>>
>> NEVER remove user created data
>
> That
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:00:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>There is a simple rule in computing:
>
>NEVER remove user created data
That is utter rubbish. Obsolete data can be dangerous, so once it's
genuinely obso
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Stroller wrote:
>
> Only saying since you asked - I've held my tongue for a long time.
>
The question that got you going was part of a control drama, not at all
a sincere question -- think "does this dress make me look fat?" :)
But really, personal st
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:45 on Friday 03 June 2011, Volker Armin
Hemmann did opine thusly:
> NEVER remove user created data
That one sentence sums up this entire thread beautifully.
Thank you for saying that.
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
On Friday 03 June 2011 11:13:48 Adam Carter wrote:
> > On 2 Jun 2011, at 15:48, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > What exactly is your problem with me?
> >
> > You really have to ask?
> >
> > > If you think I'm a juvenile wanker, a jerk or someone in possession
> > > of a miniscule penis, then come righ
>
> On 2 Jun 2011, at 15:48, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > What exactly is your problem with me?
>
> You really have to ask?
>
> > If you think I'm a juvenile wanker, a jerk or someone in possession of a
> > miniscule penis, then come right out and say so. Get it out in the open
> so it
> > can go a
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 21:28:48 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> >You have picked an excellent example, because mlocate is not the
> >package that owns or has owned /etc/updatedb.conf, slocate does too.
>
> Wrong.
>
> One can (well, could) only have one of slocate and mlocate installed at
> any given
On 2 Jun 2011, at 15:48, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> What exactly is your problem with me?
You really have to ask?
> If you think I'm a juvenile wanker, a jerk or someone in possession of a
> miniscule penis, then come right out and say so. Get it out in the open so it
> can go away and we can m
On Thursday 02 June 2011 21:28:48 David W Noon wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:00:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
>
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:26:44 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >> Now,
On Wednesday 01 June 2011 19:53:32 David W Noon wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
>
> Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >On Wednesday 01 June 2011 15:57:58 David W Noon wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:00:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:26:44 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
>> Now, nearly everybody modifies /etc/updatedb.conf. This does not
>> remove that name from mlo
On Thursday 02 Jun 2011 15:40:17 Doug Hunley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:22, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:18:36 -0400, Indi wrote:
> >> There've been times I'd have liked a simple
> >> inventory of all files relating to a package after unmerging it,
> >> like "warning --
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:26 on Thursday 02 June 2011, David W Noon
did opine thusly:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:10:02 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
>
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >Apparently, though unproven, at 17:52 on Wednesday 01 J
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:26:44 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> My issue is with your "I don't know what this is," application.
>
> Portage knows exactly what a given configuration file is, as the
> package still owns the file. The way it detects that the file has been
> customized is that the MD5 chec
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 05:00:03PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 15:05 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did
> opine
> thusly:
>
> > > scrap metal in the back yard that it's perfectly OK for marauding gangs
> > > of thugs to have at my car in the parking lots with b
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:10:02 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>Apparently, though unproven, at 17:52 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, David
>W Noon did opine thusly:
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:20:03 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote abo
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 15:09 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did
> opine
> thusly:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > > On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > Apparently, th
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:05 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did opine
thusly:
> > scrap metal in the back yard that it's perfectly OK for marauding gangs
> > of thugs to have at my car in the parking lots with baseball bats.
> >
> >
>
> Comapring a simple rsync command with hard physi
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:22, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:18:36 -0400, Indi wrote:
>
>> There've been times I'd have liked a simple
>> inventory of all files relating to a package after unmerging it,
>> like "warning -- the following files are associated with [pkg]
>> but will no
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:09 on Thursday 02 June 2011, Indi did opine
thusly:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi
> > > did
> > >
> > >
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 09:18:36 -0400, Indi wrote:
> There've been times I'd have liked a simple
> inventory of all files relating to a package after unmerging it,
> like "warning -- the following files are associated with [pkg]
> but will not be automatically removed due to having been modified".
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 08:20:01PM +0200, Dale wrote:
> David W Noon wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:20:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
> > [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:57:58 +0100, Davi
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:30:02PM +0200, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi did
> > opine thusly:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >>> Personally, I'
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 11:47:35AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi did
> opine thusly:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully cr
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:06:23 -0500, Dale wrote:
I would think this would be a idea on this. Do a emerge -C to get the
regular way and a emerge -CC to remove everything literally, including
config files.
So a bit of keyboard bounce can nuke your configs? No thank
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:52 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, David W Noon
did opine thusly:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:20:03 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
>
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
> >Sounds like you want a --really-all suboption to -C
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:06:23 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I would think this would be a idea on this. Do a emerge -C to get the
> regular way and a emerge -CC to remove everything literally, including
> config files.
So a bit of keyboard bounce can nuke your configs? No thanks. I'd rather
have an expl
David W Noon wrote:
That's easy: if you know you are going to reinstall after deleting,
just take a backup copy of those files you have modified, which is
usually only the one configuration file. After the reinstallation,
restore from your backup.
Alternatively, you can switch the suggested opt
Todd Goodman wrote:
* David W Noon [110601 14:41]:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:02 +0200, Todd Goodman wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
What you seem to ignore or miss in the discussion is that an
emerge -C is necessary at times during an upgrade
* David W Noon [110601 14:41]:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:02 +0200, Todd Goodman wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>
> >What you seem to ignore or miss in the discussion is that an
> >emerge -C is necessary at times during an upg
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:02 +0200, Todd Goodman wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>What you seem to ignore or miss in the discussion is that an
>emerge -C is necessary at times during an upgrade and rebuild when
>package dependencies are not perfect
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:01 +0200, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user]
Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>Even if the -C option is used, I would still want it to be something
>extra to remove config files. As stated before, I sometimes emerge -C
>a package then emerge it again.
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 20:20:02 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote about
Re: [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On Wednesday 01 June 2011 15:57:58 David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
>> I called it an "annoyance". Having to clean up obsolete
>> configuration files
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 qu
* David W Noon [110601 13:10]:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:20:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>
> >On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:57:58 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Remember: we are discussing the COMPLETE
David W Noon wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:20:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:57:58 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
Remember: we are discussing the COMPLETE DELETION of a
package, not an
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:20:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:57:58 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
>> Remember: we are discussing the COMPLETE DELETION of a
>> package, not an upgrade or reb
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 15:57:58 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> >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
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:20:03 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>Sounds like you want a --really-all suboption to -C
Basically, yes. I want it on -C and -c runs of emerge.
This means it would not be applicable to upgrade or rebuild r
Apparently, though unproven, at 16:57 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, David W Noon
did opine thusly:
> 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 configu
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:00:01 +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On Wednesday 01 June 2011 00:14:04 Neil Bothwick wrote:
[snip]
>> A customised file contains an investment of the user's time, a
>> generic file does not.
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
On 6/1/2011 5:47 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi did
> opine thusly:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully crafted
>>> work from time
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:31 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Indi did
opine thusly:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully crafted
> > work from time immemorial, without so much as a by-your-leave.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 02:00:01AM +0200, Peter Humphrey wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd be livid if portage were to remove my carefully crafted work
> from time immemorial, without so much as a by-your-leave. Anyone who wants
> to delete his own work is free to do so, but the rest of us ought not to
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:48:01 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > It's quite simple logic... 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.
>
> I don't think it
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:48 on Wednesday 01 June 2011, Peter
Humphrey did opine thusly:
> > It's quite simple logic... 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
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:43:59 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
Remember that I am writing purely about *unmerged* packages. In the
case of a rebuild or upgrade, customizations would be preserved just
as they are now.
Sometimes it is necessary to unmerge a package befor
On Wednesday 01 June 2011 00:14:04 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> It's quite simple logic... 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.
I don't think it's too simple. It
On Tue, 31 May 2011 17:26:43 +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
On Tue, 31 May 2011 23:43:59 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> Remember that I am writing purely about *unmerged* packages. In the
> case of a rebuild or upgrade, customizations would be preserved just
> as they are now.
Sometimes it is necessary to unmerge a package before emerging a newer
version,
David W Noon wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:40:01 +0200, Mick wrote about Re: [gentoo-user]
Cleaning redundant configuration files:
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 17:26:43 David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
To repeat myself: I do not see a customized configuration file as
being any more
On Tue, 31 May 2011 22:40:01 +0200, Mick wrote about Re: [gentoo-user]
Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On Tuesday 31 May 2011 17:26:43 David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
>> To repeat myself: I do not see a customized configuration file as
>> being any more important than a van
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
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 configurati
On Tue, 31 May 2011 07:34:22 -0500, James Wall wrote:
> > It doesn't remove *any* files that have been modified, 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 unin
On May 31, 2011 3:02 AM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote:
>
> 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 a
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
Cfg-update has such a logic. It looks for user changes, If there are
decisions to make at all and previous decisions.
Ihatethespellcheckerofmyphone.
Am 31.05.2011 08:49 schrieb "Alan McKinnon" :
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:08 AM, David W Noon wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 21...
The logic appears
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:08 AM, David W Noon 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 algori
Graham Murray wrote:
Dale writes:
There are times that if portage removed a config file, I would not be
happy. Sometimes I unmerge a package then remerge but want to keep
the config files.
Would I like there to be the option, yep, I sure would. There are
also times when I want to get ri
Dale writes:
> There are times that if portage removed a config file, I would not be
> happy. Sometimes I unmerge a package then remerge but want to keep
> the config files.
>
> Would I like there to be the option, yep, I sure would. There are
> also times when I want to get rid of a package an
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 ma
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
Am 30.05.2011 20:05, schrieb David W Noon:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:10:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
> [gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>
>> On Mon, 30 May 2011 15:48:15 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
>>
>>> How does the tool of choice de
On Mon, 30 May 2011 19:05:10 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> >> Just because a configuration file is not associated with a Portage
> >> package [any more] does not necessarily mean it is redundant.
> >
> >No, but it indicates the file warrants a closer look as it may be
> >orphaned. qfile is my too
On Mon, 30 May 2011 18:10:02 +0200, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Cleaning redundant configuration files:
>On Mon, 30 May 2011 15:48:15 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
>
>> How does the tool of choice determine if a file is redundant or not?
>>
>> Just because
On Mon, 30 May 2011 15:48:15 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
> How does the tool of choice determine if a file is redundant or not?
>
> Just because a configuration file is not associated with a Portage
> package [any more] does not necessarily mean it is redundant.
No, but it indicates the file warr
74 matches
Mail list logo
