2012/1/7 andre999 <[email protected]>: > Sander Lepik a écrit : >> >> 07.01.2012 01:09, Johnny A. Solbu kirjutas: >>> >>> On Friday 06 January 2012 18:54, Balcaen John wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess when you did encounter that you just remove task-kde from your >>>> system >>> >>> I did not. I should have been more clearly with my example. :-)= >>> The packages in my example where all console program, that I installed >>> and removed using urpm[ie]. So I explicitly removed only the one program I >>> just installed. And it did not install any other packages, as a result of >>> dependencies. >>> >>> And this is my point. We uninstall a specific program, not a meta/task >>> package, which result in some packages beeing marked as orphaned, when they >>> are infact Not orphaned. >> >> Give us command line example. Install something and remove it and then >> show me what got orphaned if it wasn't orphan before. What you claim here >> doesn't sound right as i haven't seen it myself. >> >> -- >> Sander > > > It is not exactly the same thing, but in more than one occasion when I > installed packages with similar functions at the same time, to compare them, > say A, B, and C, and later uninstalled B and C, I have found A to be > declared an orphan. Only to find that it had been required by one of the > others. > (I often prefer command-line packages. It is simple to add them to the menu > if I want. And I have often enough made such comparisons. To be fair, I > haven't done much of that since installing Mageia, when it first became > available.) > > Really though, we should consider how people work with installing software. > > The auto-orphans option and how it currently works is based on the > assumption that if package A is installed as a requirement of package B, > that on uninstalling B, one will want to uninstall A. That to me is a false > premise. > It is likely to be the case, but not necessarily. > Generally users will use the graphic installer (rpmdrake), as it is more > convenient. When the question of orphans is presented, if it is presented, > one should be presented with the same options that are presented on > installation with required packages. That is, to be able to query the > description ("more info") of the associated packages, and thus readily make > an informed decision of what to remove.
This is ok if you have 2 or 3 orphans. But it is unpractical if more packages are declared as orphans. As I wrote earlier, when he is presented with a list of 20 or even 100 "orphans" the user will definitely not sit down and check each package for "more info". -- wobo
