* Carsten Hey [2010-09-28 00:31 +0200]:
> * baldyeti [2010-09-27 21:14 -0000]:
> > But currently deborphan generates a longish list of things it thinks
> > the system no longer needs; so long I am not sure I can trust it
> > anymore. Has anyone noticed something similar?
>
> Could you send me your status file ( /var/lib/dpkg/status ) privately,
> preferably compressed with gzip or bzip2? I need this file to check
> whether some package is wrongly displayed as orphaned.
I checked the status file you sent me. The three packages whose names
do not contain a number are ok, but that's not the reason you reported
this bug.
Using the following command I checked if the other packages are really
orphaned:
perl -00 -lne "print unless /Status: deinstall ok config-files/" status \
| egrep -v '^(Replaces|Conflicts): ' \
| egrep "$(grep '[0-9]' deborphan.out \
| xargs printf ' %s([, ]|$)|')"nonexistent
This command will display false positives if a package name is mentioned
in the packages description and false negatives when Ubuntu uses
multiarch in future, but both is not the case with your status file.
To test this command and comparing its output with and without an
non-orphaned package (if you want to) try adding ' libc6([, ]|$)|'
(including the quotation and the space) before the word nonexistent at
the end of the command.
All packages that were displayed are really orphaned (and it would have
been surprising if they were not). If you are able to close this bug
yourself please do so.
Thanks for your bug report :)
Carsten
--
dubious deborphan output on 10.04
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/649330
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
