Hi, Config protect is a good things, yes. But bloating /etc is not. Maybe portage should touch a ._cfg0000_name and when etc-update detects it's empty, it would remove the file?
i dont see the problem and/or the solution ... explain it more ?
It sounds good to me. Suppose you unmerge a package which contains a file config_protected, portage should touch an empty ._cfg0000_name and then when running etc-update, you should be asked: 1) remove file _name_ 2) keep file _name_ ...
Heh. My first message was very confusing, but Gregorio got it right :)
Could be marked as dup of bug #43066 ?
*** Bug 45792 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Perhaps a dupe of 8423, also check out the script at the end that detects orphaned files.
*** Bug 94553 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Putting a hold on feature requests for portage as they are drowning out the bugs. Most of these features should be available in the next major version of portage. But for the time being, they are just drowning out the major bugs and delaying the next version's progress. Any bugs that contain patches and any bugs for etc-update or dispatch-conf can be reopened. Sorry, I'm just not good enough with bugzilla. ;)
Reopen for duping
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 8423 ***
