On Tuesday 17 May 2005 19:06, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 05:20:30PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > Please let me know if this modified text is OK with you and I will > > commit both changes. > > Looks good. Committed. > How about saying the (approximate) number of removed packages? Hmm. Sounds like overkill. I would guess that most users will not be affected too much by this. > In any case we have to add a section (maybe after reboot) > related to how to find orphaned and/or obsolete packages. I mentioned > this in a mail a few months back. Although adding the full list of > replaced packages (dummy packages will need to be removed) and/or the > list of removed packages is overkilled, some steps on how to find those > packages and effectively remove them from the system would be in order. Agree. But not too elaborate I would say. > Maybe something similar to what you can read in > http://www.debian-administration.org/?article=134 For me deborphan produces too many false positives. Personally I like to use aptitude and just go through library sections with the "M" key and see what aptitude thinks can be safely removed. Then consider if aptitude is correct or not ;-) After that I would set some other packages which I think I would not want on their own to "automatic", but that takes a bit more care than libs. > Of course, aptitutde should (again) be recommended. But with the caveat > that if you have not used it in woody you will not have the advantage > of it tracking which packages did you manually install (one of the > biggest differences between checking aptitude's obsolete package list > and running deborphan). > > I'll try to provide a patch for this soon... Great.
Attachment:
pgpK3tnHLrQO6.pgp
Description: PGP signature