Re: APT [was Re: Is this really the right thing to do?]

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Mitch Blevins wrote:

> Craig Sanders wrote:
> > why are people proposing to clutter up dpkg and apt with "features"
> > that aren't needed? seems like a waste of time and effort to me, and
> > adds bloat to programs which do not need it.
>
> The proposed change would not change dpkg, just apt.  It would not
> affect other programs 'which do not need it' so how could it bloat
> them?

if it affects apt and/or dpkg and/or dselect, then it is affecting
program(s) which do not need it.

i can't help but see this idea as just being an unnecessary and overly
complicated bit of bloat.


> > if you want to automatically remove packages which are no longer
> > needed by other packages, then surely the correct thing to do is to
> > have a (separate) tool which analyses the dependancy information and
> > outputs a list of packages which have no dependancies, optionally
> > offering a choice of removing them or not.
>
> This is not feasible.  Most packages are not needed by other packages.
> This tool would spit out a list of (almost) every non-library package
> on the system.

a command called grep can deal with this. we have a package naming
convention that library packages begin with "lib". if a lib package
fails to comply with policy then file a bug report.


> The only way to keep this list reasonable is to be able to
> differentiate which ones were installed explicitly and which ones were
> installed to satisfy a dependency.  The only (reasonable) way to make
> this differentiation is to have apt keep track of it.

i guess i just don't see much value in making that distinction, because
I don't ever want packages to be automatically uninstalled from my
system....i chose to install something, so i should be the one to chose
to uninstall it.

IMO this is particularly important for library packages - i may have
some script or program in /usr/local which will be broken if a library
package gets un-installed automatically.

> > mostly, though, i can't see the point. what harm does it do to have
> > a few extra libraries installed on a system? it's not like they
> > actually cause any problems if they aren't used.
>
> The benefits of the proposed change expand beyond just cleaning up of
> crufty libraries.  Easy package grouping is a side benefit.

huh?  aren't our packages grouped now?

craig

--
craig sanders