On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 16:04, ptyxs <pt...@free.fr> wrote: > Le 08/01/2012 16:59, Pascal Terjan a écrit : > >> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 16:48, Thomas Spuhler<tho...@btspuhler.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, January 06, 2012 12:57:39 PM Sander Lepik wrote: >>>> >>>> 06.01.2012 21:06, Dale Huckeby kirjutas: >>>>> >>>>> Evidently once I've installed package A which requests X, sometimes >>>>> packages F, L, and T might subsequently get installed which also need X >>>>> *and presumably would have requested it had it not already been >>>>> installed*. But when I uninstall A it orphans X because A is the only >>>>> package that *requested* it. When F, L, and T are installed can't all >>>>> the packages they *would have requested* be marked whether or not >>>>> they're already installed? That way a package would be orphaned only >>>>> when the last package that needs it is uninstalled? Or am I missing >>>>> something? >>>> >>>> This is already so. See example: http://pastebin.com/AMj87QiV - after >>>> first >>>> urpme libplasmaweather4 should be marked as orphan but it's not as it's >>>> still required by other package. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sander >>> >>> It seems to me, auto-orphans gives more headaches than benefits. Why are >>> we >>> clinching to it? >> >> Because I and meany other people finding it useful never faced any >> problems on their machine with it. >> >> The only problems I can remember are: >> - people wanted to remove some things required by task-kde, which >> implied removing task-kde, and then all of kde was orphan. I think >> many things were move to suggests since >> - some kind of install was installing packages requested by nothing >> and they were not marked as requested so they were listed as orphans, >> but this was fixed long ago >> > I recently installed Okular then i removed xpdf and then used auto-orphans : > I immedialtely lost any possibility to use wifi...
What would be useful would be to know what package was removed, and how it had been installed