seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 23:19 +0100, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
why on earth do you think yum should do what it's been told NOT to do?
-sv
the clean functions, to me, represents a way to make yum clean out it's
stored data - it really has nothing to do with whether or not a repo is
enabled, because the clean commands has nothing to do with repo
intervention as such. just cleans out the cache.
But how can I really be sure that ALL the data in that dir is
disposable, especially if the user has disabled the repo in question in
their config.
If the repo is disabled - it means that the user don't care about that
repo. Besides cache is always disposable, it serves a purpose but when
we ask yum to clean out the cache it should just do it. next operation
might take a little longer, but we asked for it (perhaps we needed an
additional gig of freespace) and we are not losing any functionality
whatsoever.
(Wikipedia) In computer science, a *cache* is a collection of data
*duplicating* original values stored elsewhere or computed earlier.
we can't possible loose any vital information from pretty much just "rm
-rf"-ing /var/cache/yum/*. Still yum should be the one to take care of
this, not rm.
you could add a noclean=1 option to exclude an existing repo from
cleaning if you think that would serve any purpose at all. IMO that is
not at all needed.
I err on the side of protecting data. If yum is not told to remove it,
then it won't remove it.
How do you want me to tell yum that I want to remote repo XYZ when it
does not exist anymore.
A slightly different take is this - why do we want to waste space on
cache for a repo that is disabled?
b/c the user didn't tell us to act on that repo.
That's why.
We told yum not to care about the repo - We did not tell yum to protect it.
/Thomas
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
