On 01/02/2013 02:46 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 08:59 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2012, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >> >>> gentoo-x86/profiles/updates $ LANG=C ls -1 --sort=time >>> [long list omitted] >> >>> old entries are done in different context (comparing to 2012): >> >>> - some packages change names 2 or 3 times >>> - slots have different meaning >> >>> moreover: >> >>> - if you set your PORTDIR to different directory you'll get all >>> that full update. And will break the system. Old profile entries >>> used to break eclass-manpages and latex-base (due to double >>> renaming) >> >> It's worse: Bad entries in the old files may go unnoticed for a long >> time. But if such a file is updated for whatever reason, it will be >> reprocessed on users' systems, including any bad entries contained in >> it. >> >>> Thus the reason for removal is simple: old entries are potentially >>> buggy as nobody verifies them. >> >> I wouldn't even know how to verify them. >> >> Let's remove that cruft. We can be extra conservative and keep five >> years of backlog (i.e. everything from before 2008 would be removed >> now). >> >> Ulrich >> > > OK, that seems to be some very good reasons to tree-clean them. > > What's our next step?
It might be nice to document the removal policy in the developer handbook, devmanual, or something. > Tree-cleaners, does this fall into your department? That seems fitting. > Or should I prepare a list of files and/or updates to clean? This command seems to do the trick: $ ls -1 /usr/portage/profiles/updates/ | grep -Ev '(08|09|10|11|12|13)$' 1Q-2004 1Q-2005 1Q-2006 1Q-2007 2Q-2004 2Q-2005 2Q-2006 2Q-2007 3Q-2004 3Q-2005 3Q-2006 3Q-2007 4Q-2004 4Q-2005 4Q-2006 4Q-2007 -- Thanks, Zac
