On 6 January 2012 16:13, 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.
You'll still break minimal install + manual choices. Those've to be fixed
