Re: apt has a bug, cannot believe it!
On Mon, 25 May, 2020 at 23:55:02 +0200, Marco Möller wrote:
> On 25.05.20 23:24, Liam O'Toole wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > It's OK. I understood your question the first time.
> >
> > The simple answer is that the '--no-install-recommends' option applies
> > only to the current install command. The result of a subsequent remove
> > command will depend on the state of the dependency graph as a whole at
> > the time.
> >
>
> So, no "undo" is in apt available, its database does not store sufficient
> information for it. :-( This is what I see as a severe bug.
>
> Not your fault, thanks for your input! I have had hope for a moment that
> there would exist some "undo" solution, maybe some not by default installed
> package carrying a command for it, a package somewhere in the repository and
> I missed to find it.
>
> Manual bumbling is now needed. Fortunately I have only used the 'apt'
> command for all installations, from the beginning, and not used apt-get
> directly or aptitude or synaptic. Therefore I at least have a complete log
> on all manually given 'apt install' commands in /var/log/apt/history.log ,
> to which the 'apt' command also registers the full command with all its
> parameters as having been used (some of the other mentioned tools do not log
> the exact given command, only the result of it). I now would have to write
> some script, some LogFile to InstallationScript parser, in order to get what
> I thought would happen as an "undo" by 'apt purge package'.
See the output of the command 'dpkg --get-selections', and the script
/etc/cron.daily/dpkg, for inspiration.
>
> As I am still quite new here on the Debian mailing lists, was this a topic
> before? Does it qualify for a bug report for motivating some clever
> programmers to enhance the apt cache with logging the necessary information?
> Or was it already an overheating topic in the past and I better don't spark?
Both APT and this mailing list have been around for a long time. I'd be
surprised if the topic has not been discussed before.
Reply to: