-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 14/01/13 10:53 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >>> OK i'm a little confused. Putting my earlier note aside, if >>> the symlink will be auto-cleaned after no packages use it, >>> what's the point/need for the original message from portage >>> then?? Is it just QA for the ebuild maintainer? >> >> Unfortunately, there are a number of different possible >> scenarios. It may serve as QA for the ebuild maintainer. It may >> be triggered by a symlink that the sysadmin has manually created. >> In any case, there's a performance penalty, since portage has to >> search for other packages that installed files underneath the >> symlink. The performance penalty can be avoided for a given >> symlink by adding it to UNINSTALL_IGNORE (which makes the message >> useful, regardless of where the symlink originated from). > > You can measure the performance penalty for the /var/run symlink > by running this command: > > time portageq owners / /var/run >
Based on the performance penalty, would it make sense then for system-managed symlinks like /var/run that it would be automatically added to UNINSTALL_IGNORE and its removal managed separately by whatever put it there in the first place?? (and additionally, that the warning wouldn't be presented to end-users because of it being a system-managed migration symlink instead of a end-user-managed one)? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlD0McYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPADjgD8D1nRkHqYNQLwtfb43X5QwAFI V9EM0yqdOWX9zI98+tABAJS5KTiZkejCVwK9Ord0VRtkyGVkGgZ+HDBvuOJHsIUA =3+S4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
