2012/1/6 Thierry Vignaud <[email protected]>: > On 6 January 2012 13:16, Wolfgang Bornath <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> This is just a bogus claim: >>>> If some apps break after removing orphan packages, they'll break too >>>> after manually removing such packages, meaning they lack some >>>> requires... >>> >>> Yes, right, I'd not remove such packages manually - they were marked >>> as orphans and removed by the function - which is my claim. >> >> To make it clear - my claim is that the orphan function marked >> packages as orphans which are needed and which I'd never remove >> manually. If you have a list of 100 "orphans" it is next to impossible >> for a normal user to sit down and check each and every package if it >> is really an orphan (orphan in the sense of "not needed"). > > I never say you manually removed them. > Again, if packages break after urpme --auto-orphans, they can break > after manually removing packages, thus the issue is that those > packages lacks requires on needed components.
Ah, I see your reasoning, of course, if the packager forgot to name the requires then urpmi declares them as orphans. But then, to be safe, you have to forget about auto-orphans altogether because you can not be sure that all packagers did their homework. -- wobo
