Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

Hi, > One would hope (assume?) that there's something to keep dnf from > thinking I no longer need Firefox, or emacs, or some other big package > just because nothing else depends on it any more. That seems to be in place at least for kernel and dnf. Recently I've tried to uninstall some

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

Note that packages installed by PackageKit are not marked as installed, so dnf always thinks it can remove them. No, DNF treats unmarked packages as installed by user => it never autoremoves them. Unfortunately, it seems that Packagekit is incorrectly marking all installed packages as

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

Am 06.12.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Kevin Kofler: Mathieu Bridon wrote: Note that packages installed by PackageKit are not marked as installed, so dnf always thinks it can remove them. This makes "autoremove" completely unsuitable for end users and totally inappropriate as a default (and the

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

Panu Matilainen wrote: > We're all so conditioned to the yum behavior that anything else seems > suspicious even if it (removing unused cruft) is actually a sane thing > to do. autoremoving stuff that does not HAVE to be removed due to dependencies is NEVER a sane thing to do. Kevin

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

Mathieu Bridon wrote: > Note that packages installed by PackageKit are not marked as installed, > so dnf always thinks it can remove them. This makes "autoremove" completely unsuitable for end users and totally inappropriate as a default (and the only suggestion we can give them is to NEVER use

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

Hi, On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:13:56PM -0500, James Antill wrote: > That helps, but then what? The user understands (s)he now has to find > out how to fix it, and they have two options: > > 1) Some magic command to mark some/all of the unused deps. as used, > and repeat as necessary the

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:55 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:13:56PM -0500, James Antill wrote: > > That helps, but then what? The user understands (s)he now has to find > > out how to fix it, and they have two options: > > > > 1) Some magic command to mark

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

> If the package yumdb entry (now dnfdb) says it was installed as a > dependency This is the part I assumed was there. Is there a separate dnf command to list all installed-as-dependencies that nothing depends on any more? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

> > 1) Some magic command to run after remove to remove the now unneeded > > cruft. > > The vast majority of users don't care about saving that $0.0001 of disk > space, so never need or want to run this and don't. One would hope (assume?) that there's something to keep dnf from thinking I no

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:23 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > 1) Some magic command to run after remove to remove the now unneeded > > > cruft. > > > > The vast majority of users don't care about saving that $0.0001 of disk > > space, so never need or want to run this and don't. > > One would hope

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:43 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > If the package yumdb entry (now dnfdb) says it was installed as a > > dependency > > This is the part I assumed was there. > > Is there a separate dnf command to list all installed-as-dependencies > that nothing depends on any more? You

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On 12/04/2015 02:54 PM, James Antill wrote: > and save considerable percent of time during >subsequent updates. The things removed (correctly) are the smallest leaf nodes, I am confused here---how does dnf distinguish leaf nodes that used to be a dependency, and are no longer needed because

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 02:54:44PM -0500, James Antill wrote: > On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:55 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:13:56PM -0500, James Antill wrote: > > > That helps, but then what? The user understands (s)he now has to find > > > out how to fix it, and they

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 22:13:56 +0100, James Antill wrote: > 2) Change the config. from the current gamble of save $0.0001 of disk > space on the upside, It is not about saving the disk space but about manageable number of config and binary files on your system. When I search for something I

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 09:02 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 1.12.2015 08:20, Dan Book wrote: > > I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be > > a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what > > dnf thinks is now "unused". In yum

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On 1.12.2015 08:20, Dan Book wrote: > I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be > a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what > dnf thinks is now "unused". Maybe it would help if these auto-removed packages are clearly marked as such

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 1.12.2015 08:20, Dan Book wrote: > > I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should > be > > a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what > > dnf thinks is now

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On 1.12.2015 13:25, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 12/01/2015 10:02 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: >> On 1.12.2015 08:20, Dan Book wrote: >>> I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be >>> a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what >>> dnf thinks

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On 12/01/2015 10:02 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: On 1.12.2015 08:20, Dan Book wrote: I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what dnf thinks is now "unused". Maybe it would help if these

Re: DNF could improve messages about package auto-removal

On 01/12/15 09:02 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: On 1.12.2015 08:20, Dan Book wrote: I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what dnf thinks is now "unused". Maybe it would help if these