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!
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
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 wha
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 n
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 whe
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?
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
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
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, De
# 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 Matilaine
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
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 t
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 prob
13 matches
Mail list logo
