On Sunday 15 June 2003 14:42, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 19:11, Olivier Blin wrote: > > > No, it doesn't. What Han is asking for is this. Say you installed foo > > > and urpmi pulled in libbar and libmoo as things foo depended on. If you > > > then urpme foo, libbar and libmoo don't get uninstalled. If, however, > > > you urpme'd libbar, foo *would* be uninstalled. That is, urpme > > > uninstalls things that depend on the package you call to be urpme'd, > > > but not things the package you call to be urpme'd depends upon. > > > > This isn't very safe if you compile and install yourself some packages > > that need either libbar or libmoo, instead of using urpmi. IMHO, there is > > no correct way to handle that :/ > > Excellent point.
Can we not reason that someone astute enough to compile their own software from source would be able to determine what libraries they need to re-install? Their home-built software should complain that "failed to load library libquuux.so.1: no such file" or something like that, from which they can use urpm* to find and re-install the library package, libquuux, that their software needs to run. Once they do that, then urpme will not un-install libquuux when uninstalling software, because it will be listed as having been installed explicitly with "urpmi libquuux" and not implicitly by something like "urpmi quuxdrake" where quuxdrake depends on libquuux, so urpmi installs both. quuxdrake would be flagged as being installed explicitly, while libquuux would be flagged as being installed implicitly. ~Charles -- +-% He's a real UNIX Man $-+------------------------------------+ \ Sitting in his UNIX LAN \ Charles A. Shirley \ \ Making all his UNIX plans \ cashirley (at) comcast (dot) net \ +------# For nobody @------+------------------------------------+
