Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:08:39 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing stale files Message-ID: <p05210614bb0d30155a2e@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20030611190615.GA15695@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030610124747.A7560@phantom.cris.net> <20030610024524.D23396@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030611075750.GB57496@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20030611.093203.26943899.imp@bsdimp.com> <p05210613bb0d2187f0dd@[128.113.24.47]> <20030611190615.GA15695@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:06 PM -0700 6/11/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >As for the argument that removing a library, binary or header >may break some tools, scripts or sources that depend on it: >If that happens, we failed to maintain backward compatibility. >The bug is not in the removal of a stale file, but in the >fact that the file has become stale. Keeping stale files >around only hides the bug. That isn't quite what I'm concerned about. I just want to be sure that we are *only* removing files when we *know* what they are. Many suggestions amount to removing anything "which looks old", because "if it is old, it must be bad". That means you're removing files when you don't really know what they contain, or why they're there. Or you remove files which *you* don't need, but someone else will need because they are running freebsd with different build options. Once you know that a file is indeed a stale file from a previous freebsd install, then it's pretty clear that it should be deleted. If there are bugs with backwards- compatibility, then we fix the bugs. I am not concerned with those bugs, I am concerned that the utility might remove files that we had no business removing. I started some work on what seemed like an obviously-workable solution to me, and found that it rapidly gets complicated if you want it to be something that *every* freebsd user could run without doing damage. Real damage, not "We goofed with backward-compatibility" bugs. I know what I would want to do for my next attempt at this, but I also know that I'll have no time for it anytime soon. So, I don't want to discourage anyone else from working on it. At this point, I'd almost be happy to see it done wrong, just to see something real that people could get experience with. Once we have some starting point, then we're more likely to make some progress with it. I'm just saying that a utility with a list of specific files is much less likely to blow off some poor user's foot when they run it. Certainly it makes sense to look at what netbsd has, and see if that gives us something workable. I'd like to see something that at least will "do no damage", even if might not solve all the problems we can think of with stale files. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05210614bb0d30155a2e>