Le 06/01/2012 16:13, Wolfgang Bornath a écrit :
Ah, I see your reasoning, of course, if the packager forgot to name
the requires then urpmi declares them as orphans. But then, to be
safe, you have to forget about auto-orphans altogether because you can
not be sure that all packagers did their homework.
Then you have to forget about using packages because you're not sure
packagers did their work correctly.
So far, still no one proved than 'orphan' status was wrong regarding
urpmi definition of what is an orphan package, rather than regarding
their own personal expectation.
--
BOFH excuse #370:
Virus due to computers having unsafe sex.
