Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Kevin Kofler]

Panu Matilainen wrote:
> So the answer is no, dnf does not consider "install" of an already
> installed packages to be equivalent of "mark install". I think it should
> - user asking for a package to be installed does not get any more
> explicit than "install ".

Ouch, this is totally broken!

Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 15:44 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 12/02/2015 02:42 PM, David Tardon wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:
> > > I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really
> > > should be
> > > a separate command from remove for when you actually want to
> > > remove what
> > > dnf thinks is now "unused".
> > 
> > Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will
> > install
> > package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
> > "dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
> > dependencies.
> 
> Maybe it is not so simple.
> There are dependencies with no use apart the main tool (tool requires
> tool-libs),
> but in some cases the dependency is useful on its own (e.g. fonts).
> 
> So, I counter your reasoning with this:
> 
> - dnf install foo (also installs bar)
> - dnf install bar (oops, already installed, good)
> - dnf remove foo (wow, why did it remove bar, I explicitly
> "installed" it yesterday!)
> 
> Is dnf able to recognize that bar was "wanted" and not "accidental"?

There's "dnf mark install bar" for that.

And I **think** that it's automatically done when you installed bar in
your second command above. (if it isn't it probably should be)


-- 
Mathieu

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Dan Book]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:42 AM, David Tardon  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:
> > I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should
> be
> > a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what
> > dnf thinks is now "unused".
>
> Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will install
> package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
> "dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
> dependencies.
>

Because 1. this behavior has never been default before, and 2. it is just
as logical for "remove" to be the opposite of "install" like so: Install
installs foo and its dependencies, remove removes foo and any packages
depending on it. And this is exactly how it has to work, so it is expected.

Anyway the proposal in another thread, to specify in the list that the
extra removals are because they are unneeded dependencies, and not just
more removals, would solve a lot of the confusion.


>
> D.
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Roberto Ragusa]

On 12/02/2015 02:42 PM, David Tardon wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:
>> I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be
>> a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what
>> dnf thinks is now "unused".
> 
> Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will install
> package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
> "dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
> dependencies.

Maybe it is not so simple.
There are dependencies with no use apart the main tool (tool requires 
tool-libs),
but in some cases the dependency is useful on its own (e.g. fonts).

So, I counter your reasoning with this:

- dnf install foo (also installs bar)
- dnf install bar (oops, already installed, good)
- dnf remove foo (wow, why did it remove bar, I explicitly "installed" it 
yesterday!)

Is dnf able to recognize that bar was "wanted" and not "accidental"?

Regards.

-- 
   Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Panu Matilainen]

On 12/02/2015 04:44 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:

On 12/02/2015 02:42 PM, David Tardon wrote:


On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:

I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be
a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what
dnf thinks is now "unused".


Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will install
package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
"dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
dependencies.


Maybe it is not so simple.
There are dependencies with no use apart the main tool (tool requires 
tool-libs),
but in some cases the dependency is useful on its own (e.g. fonts).

So, I counter your reasoning with this:

- dnf install foo (also installs bar)
- dnf install bar (oops, already installed, good)
- dnf remove foo (wow, why did it remove bar, I explicitly "installed" it 
yesterday!)

Is dnf able to recognize that bar was "wanted" and not "accidental"?



http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#mark-command-label

- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Panu Matilainen]

On 12/02/2015 07:04 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:

On 12/02/2015 04:44 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:

On 12/02/2015 02:42 PM, David Tardon wrote:


On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:

I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really
should be
a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove
what
dnf thinks is now "unused".


Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will install
package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
"dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
dependencies.


Maybe it is not so simple.
There are dependencies with no use apart the main tool (tool requires
tool-libs),
but in some cases the dependency is useful on its own (e.g. fonts).

So, I counter your reasoning with this:

- dnf install foo (also installs bar)
- dnf install bar (oops, already installed, good)
- dnf remove foo (wow, why did it remove bar, I explicitly "installed"
it yesterday!)

Is dnf able to recognize that bar was "wanted" and not "accidental"?



http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#mark-command-label


BTW, for something simple as this its faster to test than speculate:

[root@mursu ~]# dnf install evince
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:01:06 ago on Wed Dec  2 
19:37:16 2015.

Dependencies resolved.

 Package Arch   Version   Repository 
Size


Installing:
 evince  x86_64 3.18.2-2.fc23 updates 
   2.3 M
 evince-libs x86_64 3.18.2-2.fc23 updates 
   360 k


Transaction Summary

Install  2 Packages

Total download size: 2.7 M
Installed size: 10 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
(1/2): evince-libs-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm 3.8 MB/s | 360 kB 
00:00
(2/2): evince-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64.rpm  8.3 MB/s | 2.3 MB 
00:00


Total   1.7 MB/s | 2.7 MB 
00:01

Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
  Installing  : evince-libs-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64 
 1/2
  Installing  : evince-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64 
 2/2
  Verifying   : evince-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64 
 1/2
  Verifying   : evince-libs-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64 
 2/2


Installed:
  evince.x86_64 3.18.2-2.fc23  evince-libs.x86_64 3.18.2-2.fc23 



Complete!
[root@mursu ~]# dnf install evince-libs
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:01:21 ago on Wed Dec  2 
19:37:16 2015.

Package evince-libs-3.18.2-2.fc23.x86_64 is already installed, skipping.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!
[root@mursu ~]# dnf remove evince
Dependencies resolved.

 PackageArch  Version Repository 
Size


Removing:
 evince x86_643.18.2-2.fc23   @updates 
   9.3 M
 evince-libsx86_643.18.2-2.fc23   @updates 
   1.1 M


Transaction Summary

Remove  2 Packages

Installed size: 10 M
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.
[root@mursu ~]#


So the answer is no, dnf does not consider "install" of an already 
installed packages to be equivalent of "mark install". I think it should 
- user asking for a package to be installed does not get any more 
explicit than "install ".


- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[David Tardon]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:
> I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be
> a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what
> dnf thinks is now "unused".

Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will install
package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
"dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
dependencies.

D.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Igor Gnatenko]

http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#autoremove-command-label

dnf autoremove will just remove dependencies which is not used by
another packages.

BTW you can ignore removing non-used packages for one transaction
using option --setopt=clean_requirements_on_remove=false

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Igor Gnatenko
 wrote:
> # dnf autoremove
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:21 AM Dan Book  wrote:
>>
>> I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be
>> a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what dnf
>> thinks is now "unused".
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Panu Matilainen 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/01/2015 07:02 AM, Christopher wrote:

 What's the deal with libreoffice packages being a dependency for so many
 system library packages?

 I try to `sudo dnf remove libreoffice\*` and it grabs a bunch of
 surprising
 packages with it, including some fonts and system libraries. Granted, I
 don't think I need any of these things, so it's probably safe to
 uninstall
 them, but it is surprising that so many packages depend on libreoffice
 packages. I'd normally expect the dependencies to be the other way
 around
 (libreoffice-* depending on system libraries some basic fonts, while
 other
 fonts are independent or have only optional dependencies on
 LibreOffice).

 I don't need or want an offline office suite (it's huge, and takes up
 bandwidth during updates). I don't mind uninstalling it after a fresh
 install, but it is surprising how much goes with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-on-by-default
>>>
>>> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/conf_ref.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-label
>>>
>>> Its not that system libraries depend on libreoffice but libreoffice being
>>> the sole user of those libraries, and dnf offering to remove the otherwise
>>> unused cruft along with it.
>>>
>>> - Panu -
>>> --
>>> devel mailing list
>>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
>>
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> --
>
> -Igor Gnatenko



-- 
-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Dan Book]

Thank you for the information, but it is still confusing. What I mean by
that is that there is no discoverability to why dnf is choosing to remove
all the extra packages. So the user is left to assume that none of those
packages can function without the one you want to remove. I spent half an
hour trying to get dnf to remove a single package with nothing depending on
it and eventually gave up and used rpm -e. It was only a day or two later
when I saw the new dnf behavior being discussed on IRC that I realized what
it was trying to do.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Igor Gnatenko 
wrote:

>
> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/command_ref.html#autoremove-command-label
>
> dnf autoremove will just remove dependencies which is not used by
> another packages.
>
> BTW you can ignore removing non-used packages for one transaction
> using option --setopt=clean_requirements_on_remove=false
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Igor Gnatenko
>  wrote:
> > # dnf autoremove
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:21 AM Dan Book  wrote:
> >>
> >> I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should
> be
> >> a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove
> what dnf
> >> thinks is now "unused".
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Panu Matilainen <
> pmati...@laiskiainen.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12/01/2015 07:02 AM, Christopher wrote:
> 
>  What's the deal with libreoffice packages being a dependency for so
> many
>  system library packages?
> 
>  I try to `sudo dnf remove libreoffice\*` and it grabs a bunch of
>  surprising
>  packages with it, including some fonts and system libraries. Granted,
> I
>  don't think I need any of these things, so it's probably safe to
>  uninstall
>  them, but it is surprising that so many packages depend on libreoffice
>  packages. I'd normally expect the dependencies to be the other way
>  around
>  (libreoffice-* depending on system libraries some basic fonts, while
>  other
>  fonts are independent or have only optional dependencies on
>  LibreOffice).
> 
>  I don't need or want an offline office suite (it's huge, and takes up
>  bandwidth during updates). I don't mind uninstalling it after a fresh
>  install, but it is surprising how much goes with it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-on-by-default
> >>>
> >>>
> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/conf_ref.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-label
> >>>
> >>> Its not that system libraries depend on libreoffice but libreoffice
> being
> >>> the sole user of those libraries, and dnf offering to remove the
> otherwise
> >>> unused cruft along with it.
> >>>
> >>> - Panu -
> >>> --
> >>> devel mailing list
> >>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> devel mailing list
> >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Igor Gnatenko
>
>
>
> --
> -Igor Gnatenko
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Panu Matilainen]

On 12/01/2015 07:02 AM, Christopher wrote:

What's the deal with libreoffice packages being a dependency for so many
system library packages?

I try to `sudo dnf remove libreoffice\*` and it grabs a bunch of surprising
packages with it, including some fonts and system libraries. Granted, I
don't think I need any of these things, so it's probably safe to uninstall
them, but it is surprising that so many packages depend on libreoffice
packages. I'd normally expect the dependencies to be the other way around
(libreoffice-* depending on system libraries some basic fonts, while other
fonts are independent or have only optional dependencies on LibreOffice).

I don't need or want an offline office suite (it's huge, and takes up
bandwidth during updates). I don't mind uninstalling it after a fresh
install, but it is surprising how much goes with it.


http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-on-by-default
http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/conf_ref.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-label

Its not that system libraries depend on libreoffice but libreoffice 
being the sole user of those libraries, and dnf offering to remove the 
otherwise unused cruft along with it.


- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Christopher]

What's the deal with libreoffice packages being a dependency for so many
system library packages?

I try to `sudo dnf remove libreoffice\*` and it grabs a bunch of surprising
packages with it, including some fonts and system libraries. Granted, I
don't think I need any of these things, so it's probably safe to uninstall
them, but it is surprising that so many packages depend on libreoffice
packages. I'd normally expect the dependencies to be the other way around
(libreoffice-* depending on system libraries some basic fonts, while other
fonts are independent or have only optional dependencies on LibreOffice).

I don't need or want an offline office suite (it's huge, and takes up
bandwidth during updates). I don't mind uninstalling it after a fresh
install, but it is surprising how much goes with it.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Dan Book]

I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be
a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what
dnf thinks is now "unused".

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Panu Matilainen 
wrote:

> On 12/01/2015 07:02 AM, Christopher wrote:
>
>> What's the deal with libreoffice packages being a dependency for so many
>> system library packages?
>>
>> I try to `sudo dnf remove libreoffice\*` and it grabs a bunch of
>> surprising
>> packages with it, including some fonts and system libraries. Granted, I
>> don't think I need any of these things, so it's probably safe to uninstall
>> them, but it is surprising that so many packages depend on libreoffice
>> packages. I'd normally expect the dependencies to be the other way around
>> (libreoffice-* depending on system libraries some basic fonts, while other
>> fonts are independent or have only optional dependencies on LibreOffice).
>>
>> I don't need or want an offline office suite (it's huge, and takes up
>> bandwidth during updates). I don't mind uninstalling it after a fresh
>> install, but it is surprising how much goes with it.
>>
>
>
> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-on-by-default
>
> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/conf_ref.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-label
>
> Its not that system libraries depend on libreoffice but libreoffice being
> the sole user of those libraries, and dnf offering to remove the otherwise
> unused cruft along with it.
>
> - Panu -
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: LibreOffice packaging is a messy dependency graph

[Igor Gnatenko]

# dnf autoremove

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:21 AM Dan Book  wrote:

> I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really should be
> a separate command from remove for when you actually want to remove what
> dnf thinks is now "unused".
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Panu Matilainen 
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2015 07:02 AM, Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> What's the deal with libreoffice packages being a dependency for so many
>>> system library packages?
>>>
>>> I try to `sudo dnf remove libreoffice\*` and it grabs a bunch of
>>> surprising
>>> packages with it, including some fonts and system libraries. Granted, I
>>> don't think I need any of these things, so it's probably safe to
>>> uninstall
>>> them, but it is surprising that so many packages depend on libreoffice
>>> packages. I'd normally expect the dependencies to be the other way around
>>> (libreoffice-* depending on system libraries some basic fonts, while
>>> other
>>> fonts are independent or have only optional dependencies on LibreOffice).
>>>
>>> I don't need or want an offline office suite (it's huge, and takes up
>>> bandwidth during updates). I don't mind uninstalling it after a fresh
>>> install, but it is surprising how much goes with it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/cli_vs_yum.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-on-by-default
>>
>> http://dnf.readthedocs.org/en/latest/conf_ref.html#clean-requirements-on-remove-label
>>
>> Its not that system libraries depend on libreoffice but libreoffice being
>> the sole user of those libraries, and dnf offering to remove the otherwise
>> unused cruft along with it.
>>
>> - Panu -
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 

-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org