Bug 96797

Summary:	Portage should be reporting files in CONFIG_PROTECT differently in CONTENTS
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Chris White (RETIRED) <chriswhite>
Component:	Current packages	Assignee:	Portage team <dev-portage>
Status:	RESOLVED LATER
Severity:	normal
Priority:	High
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Other
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description Chris White (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-06-22 11:52:19 UTC

The CONTENTS file, made not only for tracking files, but also checking for modifications, doesn't take files in CONFIG_PROTECT into account.  I propose that a new object type "cfg" be created for the CONTENTS file.  This would safely allow things such as chkcontents to not falsely report config files as being modified (which they need to be generally). The "cfg" object type should probably be something like dir, listing the filename and nothing more.

Comment 1 Brian Harring (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-07-06 13:23:31 UTC

would rather have contents abstraction in place before trying this.
This isnt' stable material either way, since older portage versions won't know
wth to do with cfg objs.

Comment 2 Jason Stubbs (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2005-07-17 19:54:42 UTC

I disagree with mixing it into the CONTENTS database, whatever its 
representation. Packages can augment CONFIG_PROTECT via env.d so what portage 
records as being config files and not will be incorrect. Users can also modify 
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK which will then lead to portage not having enough 
information when it hits "cfg" files within those directories. This is also 
counter to the separating of CONFIG_PROTECT into merge-time and unmerge-time 
parts. 
 
Any changes along these lines belong in the end tools. chkcontents does not 
falsely report config files as being changed. It's simply a case of you not 
caring that they have changed. Fix it by adding an option to ignore 
CONFIG_PROTECT to chkcontents, not by destroying necessary information.