Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Eduardo Machado via arch-general]

Thanks for all your thoughts.
it will help me try something to better maintain my boxes.

[arch-general] Why does Arch still use the GTK2 version of xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin?

[DEVIN GRANT via arch-general]

Hello, I apologize if this is not the appropriate place for starting such a
discussion, but I felt I needed to voice my opinion. I think the GTK3 build
of the Whisker Menu plugin is very stable and find it very odd that Arch
still uses the antiquated GTK2 build of the plugin.


The GTK3 build will add many noticeable improvements for end users,
including better support for desktop themes. Replacing the old version will
also make it easier to ditch an old toolkit like GTK2 from our systems.

Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Tinu Weber]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 15:32:35 -0500, Kyle wrote:
> I can see a
> whole lot of other explicitly installed packages as well as packages that
> are installed as build dependencies that would also be removed using this
> method, which is unacceptable at least on my system.

If you don't want packages to be removed by the given command, install
them explicitly.

Or better, write a meta-package that keeps them in as a dependency (so
you also know *why* they are installed, and makes system housekeeping
easier in general).

Something like:

pkgname='foobar-depends'
pkgver=2018.02.14
pkgrel=1
arch=(any)

pkgdesc='Dependencies for fooing bars from baz'

package() {
  depends=(git meson libpng12 sl)
}

This way you know that e.g. libpng12 is installed on your system because
you occasionally like to foo some bars from baz.

Best,
Tinu


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Maarten de Vries via arch-general]

On 14 February 2018 at 21:32, Kyle  wrote:

> Maarten de Vries ALIANDIKA:
> # ​pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt​)
>
> Unfortunately this will break my system. It's trying to remove git for one
> thing, which is definitely something I need. Not to mention that I
> installed git explicitly, so pacman definitely shouldn't be removing it. I
> can see a whole lot of other explicitly installed packages as well as
> packages that are installed as build dependencies that would also be
> removed using this method, which is unacceptable at least on my system.
>

​This should not be the case. The -d flag to pacman -Q restricts the output
to packages installed as dependency. The -t option restricts it to packages
that are no longer needed by any other package. If that command removes a
package, pacman thinks it's an unneeded dependency.

So my guess is that either you had a typo, or the packages are currently
indeed in pacman's local database as installed as dependency. Check the
output of pacman -Qi for the packages that you think are marked as
explicitly installed (in particular "Install Reason" near the bottom).

Now, considering that this should work (if it does not there are other
problems), I think occasionally doing this manually is fine. Heck, if you
must, put it on a cronjob. But it will probably break your system from time
to time because it may turn out you were actually using packages that
happened to be installed as a dependency. That on it's own is enough reason
for me not to make pacman do it automatically. Regardless of who is lazy
and who is stupid or not.


​P.S.

The -s flag to pacman -R is just there so you get rid of packages that will
be unneeded dependencies after the removal in one go. I actually kinda like
leaving it off an running the command multiple times to see how often I
have to run it before everything is gone. Everybody needs a hobby.
​

Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Wes Barnett]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 03:32:35PM -0500, Kyle wrote:
> Maarten de Vries ALIANDIKA:
> # ​pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt​)
> 
> Unfortunately this will break my system. It's trying to remove git for one
> thing, which is definitely something I need. Not to mention that I installed
> git explicitly, so pacman definitely shouldn't be removing it. I can see a
> whole lot of other explicitly installed packages as well as packages that
> are installed as build dependencies that would also be removed using this
> method, which is unacceptable at least on my system.
> 
> On the initial topic of this thread, there has to be a cleaner way to be
> sure that packages like libxfont get removed in an automated way because
> they are no longer needed, rather than my upgrade causing an error because a
> package that is no longer in the repository breaks the upgrade instead of
> just being removed. It also doesn't help that there wasn't even so much as a
> news post on the subject before this unclean update was introduced. And when
> people are called stupid and worse for reporting and reopening a bug report
> because their upgrade process was broken and no news post was announced, I
> don't care how many times the bug report was reopened, users, even
> experienced users like myself, find this very off-putting. It does more to
> drive good people away than it does to help anyone. TBH I'm actually glad
> someone brought this to the public list and that the link to the closed bug
> report was added, so that we can see the true nature of the beast here.
> Users are never supposed to be the enemy, but even experienced power users
> who have contributed and don't post much to the list except to try to help
> when possible now feel we are being treated like last weeks garbage due to
> the handling of this dirty package upgrade, the lack of a news post and
> subsequent insults hurled at the community for reporting the bug, and yes,
> it is a bug, even if the best resolution is to post news. At the very least,
> a better explanation is in order, rather than insulting the intelligence of
> users and outright name calling because someone disagrees with the concept
> of a dirty upgrade being a bug.
> Imetumwa kutoka habari zetu

Use a pacman hook to notify yourself of new orphans after a transaction if you 
don't want to check periodically.  Packages dropped in the remote repositories
will become orphans on your local system.  Then you can manually decide what 
you want to do with an orphaned package.  Either mark it as explicitly 
installed or remove it.

See: 
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Pacman=1577=510810=510317

Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Kyle]

Maarten de Vries ALIANDIKA:
# ​pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt​)

Unfortunately this will break my system. It's trying to remove git for 
one thing, which is definitely something I need. Not to mention that I 
installed git explicitly, so pacman definitely shouldn't be removing it. 
I can see a whole lot of other explicitly installed packages as well as 
packages that are installed as build dependencies that would also be 
removed using this method, which is unacceptable at least on my system.


On the initial topic of this thread, there has to be a cleaner way to be 
sure that packages like libxfont get removed in an automated way because 
they are no longer needed, rather than my upgrade causing an error 
because a package that is no longer in the repository breaks the upgrade 
instead of just being removed. It also doesn't help that there wasn't 
even so much as a news post on the subject before this unclean update 
was introduced. And when people are called stupid and worse for 
reporting and reopening a bug report because their upgrade process was 
broken and no news post was announced, I don't care how many times the 
bug report was reopened, users, even experienced users like myself, find 
this very off-putting. It does more to drive good people away than it 
does to help anyone. TBH I'm actually glad someone brought this to the 
public list and that the link to the closed bug report was added, so 
that we can see the true nature of the beast here. Users are never 
supposed to be the enemy, but even experienced power users who have 
contributed and don't post much to the list except to try to help when 
possible now feel we are being treated like last weeks garbage due to 
the handling of this dirty package upgrade, the lack of a news post and 
subsequent insults hurled at the community for reporting the bug, and 
yes, it is a bug, even if the best resolution is to post news. At the 
very least, a better explanation is in order, rather than insulting the 
intelligence of users and outright name calling because someone 
disagrees with the concept of a dirty upgrade being a bug.

Imetumwa kutoka habari zetu

Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Maarten de Vries via arch-general]

On 14 February 2018 at 19:35, Eduardo Machado via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> 2018-02-10 1:55 GMT-02:00 Doug Newgard via arch-general <
> arch-general@archlinux.org>:
>
> > Not gremlins, just an old package that never got cleaned out. Pacman
> > doesn't do
> > this automatically.
> >
>
> Sorry to hijack this trhead,
>
> but so that pacman does not clean automagically this kind of packages. What
> is the recommended way to keep a clean box?
>

​pacman -Rs $(pacman -Qqdt​)

Re: [arch-general] libxfont: removing fontsproto breaks dependency 'fontsproto>=2.1.3'

[Eduardo Machado via arch-general]

2018-02-10 1:55 GMT-02:00 Doug Newgard via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org>:

> Not gremlins, just an old package that never got cleaned out. Pacman
> doesn't do
> this automatically.
>

Sorry to hijack this trhead,

but so that pacman does not clean automagically this kind of packages. What
is the recommended way to keep a clean box?