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 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 stuff
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 obsolete it should
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 is utter rubbish. Obsolete data can
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:
NEVER remove user created
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 configuration files
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
That is utter rubbish. Obsolete data
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.
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
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
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 crafted
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'd be livid if
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, David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
Remember
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.
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
opine thusly:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:22, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk 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
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 physical
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, though
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 about Re:
[snip]
Your
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 baseball
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 checksum
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 June 2011, David
W
On Thursday 02 Jun 2011 15:40:17 Doug Hunley wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:22, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk 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
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 mlocate's manifest. So
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]
I called it an annoyance. Having to clean
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, nearly everybody modifies /etc/updatedb.conf
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 move
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 time.
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
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 right out and say
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 is
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's too
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 be
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 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
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
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. That investment may
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 configuration
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 runs
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 modified
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 rebuild.
We are discussing
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
* David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com [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 DELETION
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
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 is just that, unless you can
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. I still want
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.
See my
* David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com [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 and rebuild
Todd Goodman wrote:
* David W Noondwn...@ntlworld.com [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
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
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
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
Basically, yes. I
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
Graham Murray wrote:
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com 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
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
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 alan.mckin...@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:08 AM, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On
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
On May 31, 2011 3:02 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk 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
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 uninstalled
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
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
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 vanilla one. If I
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 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,
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 modified by
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
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
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
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 a configuration file
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 tool of choice
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 determine if a file is redundant
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
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
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com 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
74 matches
Mail list logo
