On 2020-04-23 13:59:29 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Thu 23 Apr 2020 at 02:53:06 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2020-04-22 16:07:28 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > For trivial renames, which yours looks like, as do those I've done, > > > it would be pretty easy to script. I've never made the effort, > > > because it's not something I do frequently enough, usually just once, > > > soon after I start running a new release on the first computer. Then > > > I adjust the list of packages used for the rest of them. Manually: > > > > > > $ apt-get -s purge pdftk > > > The following package was automatically installed and is no longer > > > required: > > > pdftk-java > > > Use 'apt autoremove' to remove it. > > > # apt-mark manual pdftk-java > > > pdftk-java set to manually installed. > > > $ apt-get -s purge pdftk > > > # apt-get purge pdftk > > > Removing pdftk (2.02-5) ... > > > > > > (Routine output edited out.) The first step can list more packages, > > > so checking the Depends line for the original package should show > > > which is the replacement. > > > > I think that you are over-optimistic. Imagine the following case. > > The pdftk package has been manually installed in the past > > Right… > > > and is > > not a transitional package to pdftk-java > > OK, let's pretend that is true… > (Not changing the names may be confusing.) > > > (currently, this is like > > your example). > > I can't determine what you mean by this, so I'm ignoring it. > > > But the system has some package that depends on > > pdftk-java. So, when you run > > > > apt-get -s purge pdftk > > > > you won't have any message about pdftk-java. > > Why would I suddenly decide to purge pdftk? I installed it for a > reason and, if it's not transitional, it's still fulfilling that > purpose.
Since you don't want to purge pdftk, why did you decide to purge it above? > > Later in the future, > > the dependency on pdftk-java disappears, so that pdftk-java will > > be proposed for autoremoval. > > No, because I'm not removing pdftk in the first place, so the rest > of this hypothetical scenario is flawed, hence ignored: But you did purge it. I don't follow you. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
