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

Sat Jan 7 13:23:48 CET 2012

Sander Lepik a écrit :
+> 07.01.2012 12:18, andre999 kirjutas:
+>> 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.)
+> So what you say is:
+>
+> urpmi A
+> urpmi B
+> urpmi C
+
+Not at all.  That is installing A, B, and C sequentially, one after the 
+other.
+Using urpmi, installing at the same time would be
+
+urpmi A B C
+
+Although I'm not sure that it would work the same as rpmdrake, which I 
+use so as to more easily select and install packages with similar functions.
+I'm sure that most users with similar considerations would do the same.
+Of course if one is involved in developing or testing packages, urpmi is 
+convenient, but otherwise a graphical interface like rpmdrake is easier.
+>
+> urpme B C
+>
+> A would be orphan? Really?! Show me. I want an example!
+
+Not your example.  But that is not what I said.
+
+>> 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.
+> You do get the point of orphans?! System has no AI. It only knows what 
+> it has to know. If you still want A you would just run urpmi A and 
+> urpme --auto-orphans won't remove it! Simple as that.
+
+I understand very well the concept.  My point is that, in terms of what 
+users can reasonably expect to happen, and how auto-orphans is applied, 
+the concept is flawed.
+Telling users that it is safe to remove identified "orphans", where the 
+expected functioning of their system can be seriously impacted, is 
+simply not appropriate.
+(One could say not very "user-friendly".)
+
+BTW, the solution to remove the auto-orphan message for a package, a 
+feigned install of an already installed package, is rather obtuse, to 
+say the least.
+>
+> -- 
+> Sander
+>
+-- 
+André
+
+