* Christoph Biedl <debian.a...@manchmal.in-ulm.de> [240302 17:02]: > Chris Hofstaedtler wrote... > > > please remove deborphan. It is stuck, featurewise, in a very old time > > and does not support many currently available dpkg features properly > > (multi-arch, versioned provides, etc). > > FWIW, deborphan is part of my regular workflow, and while you claim > it has defects, it works for me pretty well.
It works "well" if you use it in very limited usecases, yes (like I did). It doesn't seem to work well for a lot of people using more of the "features" it has. The t64 transition will apparently make deborphan mostly useless in trixie. > [..] > So: What are the alternatives? How do they work? Are they a drop-in > replacment or do they introduce new dependencies? Are there feature that > will be no longer supported? release-notes recommends: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#removing-non-debian-packages Some people seem to recommend debfoster. > Leaving users in the void about this is just bad style. You are welcome to write a new tool or implement all the missing parts in deborphan and deal with users thinking deborphan is a magic tool that knows everything and its output can be used by non-thinking humans. Various people in the past have suggested its "trivial" and "obvious" how it should work, yet we don't seem to have a lot of these tools that are not "partially right but also wrong a lot". Chris
