Re: APT [was Re: Is this really the right thing to do?]
On 02-Dec-98, 19:21 (CST), Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> that is a completely different thing to automatically uninstalling
> packages simply because the package manager has noticed that nothing
> depends upon it.
That wasn't the proposal. The proposal was for a way of tracking
packages that were *automatically* selected *soley* to satisfy
a dependency from a manually selected package, and for a way to
*optionally* have those automatically selected packages removed when
they are no longer required.
A tool lists packages with no others depending upon them + grep is not
sufficient, for precisely the reasons you state: If I deliberately
select "libfoo" so that I can a locally built package that use it, that
is different than having libfoo selected by apt/dselect/whatever because
I selected "bar".
The fact that you don't value such a feature doesn't mean that many
others wouldn't. I don't have any use for internatialization code, being
a self-centered English speaking US citizen[1], and ghod only knows how
much bloat i18n causes. But other's *do* find it useful, I assume. Since
it doesn't get in my way, I don't object. If apt tracks which packages
are "auto-selected", and provides a way for you to not view/use that
information, and such a feature is of value to a bunch of other people,
what's the harm? Yes, it makes the codebase bigger. Any feature does.
But if the thing has sufficient value, then it's worth the effort and
size. I (and apparently others) think this particular feature is.
Steve
Reply to: