[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .

Sat Jan 7 11:25:49 CET 2012

Le 07/01/2012 11:18, andre999 a écrit :
+> Sander Lepik a écrit :
+>> 07.01.2012 01:09, Johnny A. Solbu kirjutas:
+>>> On Friday 06 January 2012 18:54, Balcaen John wrote:
+>>>> I guess when you did encounter that you just remove task-kde from 
+>>>> your system
+>>> I did not. I should have been more clearly with my example. :-)=
+>>> The packages in my example where all console program, that I 
+>>> installed and removed using urpm[ie]. So I explicitly removed only 
+>>> the one program I just installed. And it did not install any other 
+>>> packages, as a result of dependencies.
+>>>
+>>> And this is my point. We uninstall a specific program, not a 
+>>> meta/task package, which result in some packages beeing marked as 
+>>> orphaned, when they are infact Not orphaned.
+>> Give us command line example. Install something and remove it and 
+>> then show me what got orphaned if it wasn't orphan before. What you 
+>> claim here doesn't sound right as i haven't seen it myself.
+>>
+>> -- 
+>> Sander
+>
+> It is not exactly the same thing, but in more than one occasion when I 
+> installed packages with similar functions at the same time, to compare 
+> them, say A, B, and C, and later uninstalled B and C, I have found A 
+> to be declared an orphan.  Only to find that it had been required by 
+> one of the others.
+> (I often prefer command-line packages.  It is simple to add them to 
+> the menu if I want.  And I have often enough made such comparisons.  
+> To be fair, I haven't done much of that since installing Mageia, when 
+> it first became available.)
+>
+> Really though, we should consider how people work with installing 
+> software.
+>
+> The auto-orphans option and how it currently works is based on the 
+> assumption that if package A is installed as a requirement of package 
+> B, that on uninstalling B, one will want to uninstall A.  That to me 
+> is a false premise.
+> It is likely to be the case, but not necessarily.
+> Generally users will use the graphic installer (rpmdrake), as it is 
+> more convenient.  When the question of orphans is presented, if it is 
+> presented, one should be presented with the same options that are 
+> presented on installation with required packages.  That is, to be able 
+> to query the description ("more info") of the associated packages, and 
+> thus readily make an informed decision of what to remove.
+> As well, the message should be that the orphaned packages "may" be no 
+> longer useful, instead of saying that they can be safely removed.
+> Sure, in terms of not being strictly required by other packages, they 
+> can be safely removed, but if I had always followed the auto-orphan 
+> advice, I would have uninstalled gnome on more than one occasion.  
+> (Which is my usual desktop environment.)
+>
+> What is more important is what is needed for the user to be able to 
+> use their computer as they wish, with the packages providing the 
+> functions they wish.  In that sense, auto-orphans does indeed break 
+> systems.
+>
+> My 2 cents :)
+>
++1
+
+
+-- 
+Ce courriel a été émis à partir du système d'exploitation Mandriva
+Linux
+Préférez les logiciels libres et les formats ouverts.
+LINUX ? IL Y A MOINS BIEN, MAIS... C'EST PLUS CHER !!
+
+
+