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

[ptyxs]

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 !!