1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Orphans%20-%20those%20poor%20orphans%20.%20.%20.&In-Reply-To=%3C4F081C00.9050408%40laposte.net%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="011066.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="011069.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .</H1>
<B>andre999</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Orphans%20-%20those%20poor%20orphans%20.%20.%20.&In-Reply-To=%3C4F081C00.9050408%40laposte.net%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .">andre999mga at laposte.net
</A><BR>
<I>Sat Jan 7 11:18:40 CET 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="011066.html">[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="011069.html">[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#11068">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#11068">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#11068">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#11068">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Sander Lepik a écrit :
><i> 07.01.2012 01:09, Johnny A. Solbu kirjutas:
</I>>><i> On Friday 06 January 2012 18:54, Balcaen John wrote:
</I>>>><i> I guess when you did encounter that you just remove task-kde from
</I>>>><i> your system
</I>>><i> I did not. I should have been more clearly with my example. :-)=
</I>>><i> The packages in my example where all console program, that I
</I>>><i> installed and removed using urpm[ie]. So I explicitly removed only
</I>>><i> the one program I just installed. And it did not install any other
</I>>><i> packages, as a result of dependencies.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> And this is my point. We uninstall a specific program, not a
</I>>><i> meta/task package, which result in some packages beeing marked as
</I>>><i> orphaned, when they are infact Not orphaned.
</I>><i> Give us command line example. Install something and remove it and then
</I>><i> show me what got orphaned if it wasn't orphan before. What you claim
</I>><i> here doesn't sound right as i haven't seen it myself.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> --
</I>><i> Sander
</I>
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 :)
--
André
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="011066.html">[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="011069.html">[Mageia-dev] Orphans - those poor orphans . . .
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#11068">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#11068">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#11068">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#11068">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
