Le Fri, May 24, 2002 at 11:22:31AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait: > > "apt-get remove" should remove the packages which can't stay after the > > removal of the packages which are asked to be removed. It shouldn't try > > to keep them by installing new packages. I understand that it may want to > > try an upgrade of the package to see if it can keep it but no more. > > I disagree, if you don't like what it is going to do you can always > specfiy a more exact directions on the command line. To excessively remove > things would be against the basic behaviour of install/remove commands.
Really it's disturbing ... when you remove a package, you want to remove it and not replace it. I know that what happened here is just a corner case of a more generic logic but still, I believe that removing a package is « remove the package and make the system consistent by removing other packages whose dependencies are no more fulfilled ». And certainly not « remove the package and install other packages to make the system consistent again ». An intermediate solution would be to apply a logic of recursive removal limited to one level : « remove the package and remove packages whose dependencies are no more fulfilled unless their removal would cause more removals ». If none of these two behaviours are acceptable to you, then close the bug. I think apt's current behaviour is bad but I won't argue endlessly. :-) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
