In the latest version portage-2.1.2-r5 at least, but possibly sooner, the CONFIG_PROTECT behavior has changed I believe. It no longer protects the files in /etc from removal. At least on my system, if I emerge -C mailbase, then /etc/mailcap gets removed. In previous versions it was cfgpro'd. The problem is that there are sometime empty directories that get removed on upgrade. Try upgrading cups or hal, the directories they create in /etc get removed after the upgrade. Either keepdir them or fixing portage would probably be the proper solution. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
I was thinking that there might be an easy fix for this that would fix pretty much every other "package upgrade removes directory; my program doesn't work anymore" bug out there. When unmerging a package, if portage finds an empty directory, it should check to see if another package owns the empty directory. If one does, then the directory should be left alone. The thing is though, portage only really needs to check packages WITH THE SAME NAME (this should take care of 99% of cases). Therefore, instead of having to go through 500 packages on a fully prepped system, portage only usually needs to check 1 or 2 packages to see if they own the empty directory. Anyways, regarding remove regular files in /etc, I guess it isn't all that important because if you really had some important configuration in it, then the mtime would be different and it wouldn't get removed anyway. Therefore, I think I'm going to try to write a patch implementing the empty directory check I was describing. If anyone has any useful suggestions about this, please let me know.
(In reply to comment #0) > In the latest version portage-2.1.2-r5 at least, but possibly sooner, the > CONFIG_PROTECT behavior has changed I believe. Not a bug, that's intended. > The problem is that there are sometime empty directories that get removed on > upgrade. Try upgrading cups or hal, the directories they create in /etc get > removed after the upgrade. Either keepdir them or fixing portage would probably > be the proper solution. Then file bugs about those ebuilds, not about portage. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 8423 ***
Why is that intended? Just curious, but would really like to know, just to understand how it's supposed to work.
