[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: yum clean bug



On 12/10/05, Jesse Keating <jkeating j2solutions net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-09 at 20:14 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > "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.
> >
> > I err on the side of protecting data. If yum is not told to remove it,
> > then it won't remove it."
> >
> > So this is not-disposable data needing protection. I translate this into
> > data that must be preserved. If it's not preserved it's not really
> > protected, right ?
>
> You're extrapolating.  The data can/could be recreated.  The user may
> not wish to incur the cost of the recreation.  Lots of bandwidth, lots
> of time, etc...  Thus Seth is developing his program to err on the side
> of conservation rather than whole sale cache removal.  Nothing in his
> reasoning says that the data HAS to remain.  The user may wish it to
> remain.  Cache does you no good if you just remove it every single time
> it gets written.  Theoretically you can do this, because of hte way that
> cache works, and how the FHS says that cache should work.  However a lot
> of times this isn't a desirable usage.
>
> Again you are taking words and meanings and morphing them into a
> position you feel you could argue against, for apparently no good
> reason.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the user doesn't want to incur the
cost of recreation, they shouldn't be running `yum clean all`. It's
perfectly reasonable to assume that there will be such a cost
associated with it. If the user wishes it to remain, they shouldn't
really be running any clean commands. The program is erring on the
side of conservation when it is explicitly told to 'clean all'.

n0dalus.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]