Re: removing sound-juicer
Many thanks, Andrew, for taking the trouble to provide such a
lucid explanation. :) No further comment.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:34:59PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> [...]
>
> install a package called dep3, it is marked as manually installed and
> will be left alone by aptitude.
>
> install meta1, that meta-package is marked as manually
> installed so aptitude will not remove it without explicit
> instructions. meta1 depends on dep1, dep2, dep3. dep1 and 2 get
> installed and aptitude marks them all as automatically
> installed. dep3 is already installed, fine.
>
> now install meta2 which depends on dep2 and dep4. Now dep2 is already
> installed, but not dep4 which gets pulled in and also marked as
> automatically installed.
>
> Now you have:
>
> meta 1 -manual
> dep1 -auto
> dep2 -auto
> dep3 -manual
>
> meta 2 -manual
> dep2 -auto
> dep4 -auto
>
> So later when you remove meta1, aptitude goes
> through all its dependencies and checks to see if anything *else*
> depends on them too. It looks at dep1 and sees that nothing else is
> depending on it and its marked as automatically installed so marks it
> for removal. Next it looks at dep2 and sees that meta2 depends on it
> and leaves it. Finally it looks at dep3 and sees nothing depending on
> it, but it is marked as manually installed and leaves is alone.
>
> Likewise, another scenario using the same packages as above: I'm done
> with dep3, not realising meta1 depends on it, I remove it. This breaks
> meta1, so meta1 gets marked for removal as well cascading to dep1 and
> dep2 (which stays because meta2 uses it).
--
David Jardine
"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it." -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
Reply to: