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 !!