Bug#901193: Bug#901003: There is no standard way of removing transitional / dummy packages
Vincent.Mcintyre@csiro.au wrote:
>> + <para>
>> + The package descriptions for transitional dummy packages usually indicate their
>> + purpose. However, they are not uniform; in particular, some <quote>dummy</quote>
>> + packages are designed to be kept installed (e.g. to express a dependency on
>> + the current latest version of some program). You might also find
>> + <command>deborphan</command> with the
>> <literal>--guess-<replaceable>*</replaceable></literal> options (e.g.
>> - <literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect them in your system. Note
>> - that some dummy packages are not intended to be removed after an upgrade but
>> - are, instead, used to keep track of the current available version of a program
>> - over time.
>> + <literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect transitional dummy packages
>> + on your system.
>> </para>
>> </section>
>>
>
> I agree with everything you've said about this text but as regards
> the patch I think some mention of tracking packages should be kept.
> Something like:
>
> One class of dummy package that are not intended to be removed
> are <quote>tracking</quote> packages, which are used to keep
> track of the current available version of a program over time.
> A common case is <literal>linux-image-</literal>-&architecture;.
The idea was that the earlier bit about "a dependency on the current
latest version of some program" was talking about "tracking packages",
and it seemed to make more sense to mention them in the part before
the deborphan recipe.
Unlike Ben I rather like the idea of distinguishing version-tracking
dependency metapackages from full-suite dependency metapackages, but
we don't want to go into it in depth here. The objective is just to
tell readers enough to let them ignore both kinds while searching for
transitional dummy packages.
I was deliberately not using linux-image-* as an example on the
grounds that it doesn't claim to be a "dummy package". In fact most
of the confusing cases seem to be "full-suite" metapackages.
So another option would be:
The package descriptions for transitional dummy packages usually indicate their
purpose. However, they are not uniform; in particular, some <quote>dummy</quote>
packages are designed to be kept installed, in order to pull in a full software
suite, or track the current latest version of some program. You might also find
<command>deborphan</command> with the
<literal>--guess-<replaceable>*</replaceable></literal> options (e.g.
<literal>--guess-dummy</literal>) useful to detect transitional dummy packages
on your system.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: