David Kalnischkies wrote: > I don't include the depends thing as the root cause for dpkg > to even consider to disappear the package is that it has > no files left. That it has also no dependencies is "just" an > (important) safety-net.
Makes sense. Actually my reaction was that the label seems a bit long. So leaving that detail out was a good idea; sorry to mislead. > Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> I still prefer the idea of transitional packages having the "auto" >> bit passed on to dependencies[1]. [...] > It can't be used for auto-bit passing as the section as requested > is for metapackages - if it gets implemented as in ubuntu currently > this will only mark the dependencies of a metapackage as manual > installed, so command series like > $ apt-get install gnome > $ apt-get remove epiphany-browser > $ apt-get autoremove > are no longer trashing the complete gnome stack as shown e.g. > in the blocked bug. Could you clarify this a little? I was thinking of something similar but not identical: a section for _transitional_ packages. If I explicitly install oldPkg, or so the theory goes, then it really does make sense to mark newPkg as manually installed, so I can remove the transitional oldPkg later without bad consequences. On the other hand, if oldPkg is automatically installed, then newPkg should be considered automatically installed, too. <offtopic> Marking the dependencies of a metapackage as manually installed has the huge downside that there is no easy way to remove that suite of programs later. For metapackages, as I think was discussed on debian-devel, it seems better to use Recommends. I don’t know what APT does when a recommended package is removed; maybe a "sticky" bit would also be needed to avoid removing the metapackage just because one of its components was removed. </offtopic> > The rename case is different: If the oldPkg was manual installed > the newPkg should be marked as manual also - but if it was > auto-installed the newPkg should also be auto-installed. Hmm, does it really make sense to mark everything from gnome as manually installed just because some other (lazily made) package depended on gnome? > I am currently thinking about transferring the auto-bit for disappeared > packages with the theory that a disappeared package only depends on > the package(s) replacing it - beside packages needed for the maintainer > scripts - but these should be eliminated with a check if the dependency > replaces the package… Sounds dangerous. Consider that every package implicitly Replaces the empty directories from every other package, and you can see this becoming counterintuitive. > Oh, and while i was able to add some logic to APT to eliminate the > need for an ignore flag for APT i think it should still be added for the > more simpler scripts and/or APT alternatives which don't want or can't > parse the status-fd Yes, I liked the patch, too :), though I like what you did even more. If there is anything I can do to make it more suitable (e.g., making the test script less ugly), I’d be glad to hear. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100526211640.gc4...@progeny.tock
