yum clean bug

[Thomas M Steenholdt]

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