On 2008-04-21 19:13:43 -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: [...] > The autoremoval stuff is designed to be conservative in what it > removes: it only removes packages if it can prove that nothing depends > on them. This sometimes results in oddities like the above, but those > are much better than the alternative. *Even if* a complicated algorithm > existed to decide what should be removed (and as I noted above, I don't > believe any such algorithm exists because the package that should be > removed is not a function of the inputs to the dependency resolver), I > think the grounds of simplicity and comprehensibility argue in favor of > aptitude's current behavior. When it misbehaves, you can understand why > without reading an AI textbook first. :)
Since this does not apply to transitional packages, I've submitted a new bug for the case where such packages appear in a OR dependency: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069585 This now also becomes more important as deborphan has been removed from Debian, so that one can only rely on "apt autoremove". -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
