[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#987017: marked as done (recommends 3 different ways to find obsolete packages, pick one)

Your message dated Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:34:19 +0200
with message-id <aIFxe7KIFFzhWwIz@per.namespace.at>
and subject line Re: Bug#987017: release-notes: Giving many ways to do something *is* useful
has caused the Debian Bug report #987017,
regarding recommends 3 different ways to find obsolete packages, pick one
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
987017: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987017
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release-notes
Severity: minor

The release notes, in sections 4.2.2 and 4.8, actually suggest *three*
*different* ways of finding what are essential orphaned packages:

    aptitude search '~o'
    aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
    apt-forktracer | sort

Then I also know of those:

    apt-show-versions | grep -v /bullseye
    aptitude search '?narrow(?installed, ?not(?origin(Debian)))'
    aptitude search '?narrow(?not(?archive("^[^n][^o][^w].*$")),?version(CURRENT))'

I frankly don't quite know where I stand with all this anymore, but I
am getting the strong feeling we're sending an incoherent message
here. :)

In my personal documentation, I've settled on `apt-forktracer`, but I
suspect we might want to stick with `aptitude search '~obsolete'`
because that matches other documentation in the release notes (and
allows for easy purging).

Is there any reason why we have all that diversity?

What's the right way to do what we actually want here?

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.9
  APT prefers stable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental'), (1, 'unstable'), (1, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-16-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=fr_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 07:24:17PM +0000, R Lewis wrote:
> Did i miss anything or should we close this bug?

Lets close it, then.

One day APT will get better support for removing cruft, then this 
can be revisited.

Chris

--- End Message ---
Reply to: