On 2012-02-07 03:09, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
[...]
> > 2) Further discussion. For example, more arguments why new behavior may
> > be unnacceptable as a default, or implementing more fine-grained setup
> > to specify user-level dependencies like
> >
> > cupt::resolver::user-dependencies { "xserver-xorg: Depends:
> > xserver-xorg-video-i128, xserver-xorg-video-nouveau" };
> >
> > , or other suggestions.
>
> I can imagine myself using a "weakly non-auto" state[*] signifying
> that this package should be kept as long as it can be used to satisfy
> a dependency. If I were cupt maintainer, I would probably turn this
> report into a wishlist item for storing a list of packages to
> distinguish which are the automatically installed packages the user
> does not care about, and which the user hand-picked and does not want
> to see removed for frivolous reasons.
Well, "which the user hand-picked and does not want to see removed for
frivolous reasons" is usually what "unmarkauto" does. It's a quick
and in most cases simplest&best way to say "don't autoremove this for
whatever reasons".
I am against introducing the new state, but I think the idea is not bad
and we can have the option like
'cupt::resolver::no-autoremove-if-rdepends-exist' [1] to name the
packages (by regexes) to behave like you described.
> [**] I haven't checked: are packages marked auto documented to behave
> that way?
I don't know any better documentation that a phrase from apt-get(8):
| [...] remove packages that were automatically installed to satisfy
| dependencies for other packages and are now no longer needed
And the problem is the meaning of "no longer needed" can be different.
[1] suggestions for better/shorter option name?
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
