-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tarek Ziadé wrote: > I am wondering *when* the depender(s) may vanish like that, leaving > behind them orphaned dependencies. > > I guess this can happen when: > > 1/ a package (*looks like we can't help it calling a distribution a > package after all...*) is removed by another > tool that it was installed with. > > 2/ something goes wrong during uninstallation > > So I wonder : will 1/ really happen that often ? and shouldn't 2/ be > taken care by the high-level uninstaller ? This is assuming a particular mode of uninstaller operation: immediate removal of all no-longer-needed dependencies at the same moment when the depender is uninstalled. It was clear during the original discussion of REQUESTED several months back that this is not the only use case. Many may prefer to have orphan-removal be a separate process run at a later time (like deborphan). In any case, regardless of how infrequently we _think_ two different tools will be used to manage packages on a system, it seems irresponsible to choose to prevent them from interoperating cleanly around orphaned dependencies by choosing not to store the one bit of metadata that would easily allow them to do so. What's the downside? Carl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLbB1y1j/fhc23WEARAtCeAKDHG1+jH1yRN0F48qWJgdx2Ezh2jACgk7TA Gti73zRZ2lYH8f5iaJjzylY= =l1ds -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
