On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:45:13PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
> just a short note: unfortunately i lack the time to bother about such
> enhancements. But i wouldn't mind applying a patch.
OK, thanks for letting me know. I will look closer at localepurge and
let you know what I come up with.
> On the other hand: why should it be considered a problem if cruft reports
> files as missing?
Because that is its purpose: to report what should be on the system, but
isn't, or what shouldn't be there, but is. That is, to help system
administrator keep his system nice and tidy. And, apparently, to help
detect bugs in packages, especially regarding their {pre,post}{inst,rm}.
> And why should localepurge solve what cruft can't handle?
Short answer: because cruft can't really handle anything on its own.
It's just glue between what different packages and the filesystems
"say".
Longer answer: cruft needs to get from somewhere its knowledge on what
should or shouldn't be present on the system. For example, dpkg's file
database "says" that some ".mo" file should be there. I am simply
looking for a flexible and consistent way for other packages (like
localepurge) to "say" that "I have deleted some file installed by dpkg,
and that's OK".
regards,
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
