On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 14:24, Wolfgang Bornath <molc...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 2012/1/7 Sander Lepik <sander.le...@eesti.ee>: >> 07.01.2012 13:39, Wolfgang Bornath kirjutas: >>> >>> Of course this is one way to find bugs in packages. But what about the >>> documented (in German) case where >>> - after fresh installation, reboot (ok) and updates right after >>> installation I was presented with a list of more than 100 "orphans". >>> - I ran 'urpme --auto-orphans' and rebooted >>> - several system services (which started successfully after >>> installation) refused to start now because of missing files >>> >>> Of course urpmi was not the culprit because it only checks >>> dependencies. But that did matter in that situation. The auto-orphans >>> function obviously listed packages which may have no dependencies but >>> are needed by the system. That's why I do not complain about urpmi but >>> about the whole function. As long as this function is only based on >>> package dependencies it is not safe to use it. >> >> Did you choose custom install and unchecked some options? Or did you use >> LiveCD maybe? Anyway.. function is not to blame. Next time copy those >> packages that are going to be uninstalled. And they can be rechecked. Which >> are needed and why they get orphaned. > > Used the full DVD (32-bit) Mageia 2 Alpha 2 > - minimal install with X > - after installation and reboot everything was ok > - setup the package media (dedicated mirror) and did 'urpmi -auto-update' > - I did NOT install or remove one single package manually > - after that urpmi showed a list of more than 100 orphans > - used 'urpme -auto-orphans > - at reboot the start messages showed several errors concerning > crond, network-up, postfix, display manager, etc. - system start > stopped before x was started. Repeated the boot process with same > result. > > A side question is why I got so many orphans in a minimal system with > only around 700 packages in total and only around 2 or 3 dozens of > updates (all this happened not long after Alpha 2 release.) > > Of course urpmi is not the culprit, it is the shortcomings of the > function as it is. It should just not be there if its use could lead > to such behavior, no matter where the cause comes from. Simply said: a > gasoline brand should not be sold if it could do damage to the car's > motor, no matter which of the components of the fluid causes the > damage.. > > Anyhow, I will repeat the same operation when Alpha 2 is released in a > couple of days and as soon as the system shows orphans I will document > that list and (if the same problem arises) dmesg output if available. > What else do you need for a reasonable documentation?
Thanks, this is obviously an installation bug as those packages should be listed as requested.