On Sun, 2003-06-15 at 22:31, Charles Shirley wrote: > 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
Of course we could, but do we want to? The whole point of this change, it seems to me, is to be more elegant, and yanking out libraries a user is relying on and expecting them to reinstall them manually does not strike me as being that. -- adamw
