Re: Bug#704424: release-notes: sufficient-space hints give confusing advice
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Justin B Rye wrote:
>>> * Run aptitude and look for the "Obsolete and Locally
>>> Created Packages" category, which will contain packages
>>> from previous releases that you never bothered to remove.
>>
>> These may be "obsolete", but unless they're *also* redundant automatic
>> installs (covered in the previous points), they don't seem likely
>> candidates for freeing up space before a dist-upgrade. [...]
>
> That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.
>
> This text comes from r4245 (2007-03-27). I think it's meant to be a
> short cut for finding old libraries, but I agree with you that the other
> advice is more likely to be fruitful. So let's just drop it, as you
> suggested.
>
> How about this patch?
That's an improvement, but it still retains pointers to section 4.9,
which has the same problem in reverse: it talks about obsolete
packages (meaning relics that are no longer in the new release) and
has therefore attracted extra content that's talking about redundant
ex-dependencies. It seems to me we should put all our coverage of
redundant packages in 4.4.3 (mentioning "apt-get autoremove" and
avoiding the word "obsolete"), put all our coverage of relic packages
in 4.9, and leave the two sections completely unconnected.
The only thing they've got in common is a piece of double-booked
jargon. It's as if our explanations of sources.list files wandered
off into a discussion of source packages.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: