Re: Return a Debian system to a pristine state
On Fri 29 May 2020 at 22:23:23 (+0200), Marco Möller wrote:
> On 29.05.20 21:48, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 29 May 2020 at 21:57:06 (+0700), Victor Sudakov wrote:
> (...)
> > > > "apt has a bug, cannot believe it!"
> > > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/05/msg00567.html
> > >
> > > Well, I must admit, I can sympathize with this person's frustration. He
> > > just got confused among those AutoRemove* advanced options.
> >
> > I think it's much more than that. The OP appeared to regard the
> > --no-install-recommends option as a *property* that is applied to each
> > package installed under that recommendation regime, and that
> > that property would be preserved for all time. But as the "-install-"
> > in --no-install-recommends shows, it's just an option for the install
> > command itself.
> (...)
>
> Here the OP of that thread. Exactly this, David.
> I would really wish that the "--no-install-recommends" option would
> act as a "--no-recommends-wished" option! Then, together with parsing
> the apt log file(s) as suggested in that thread, an "undo"
> functionality would become available. And concerning the OP of this
> thread (and I imagine meeting many other user's needs, as well) such
> "undo" applied to several packages could straight forward lead to the
> return to a pristine state (independent of how somebody would like to
> define this state) as asked for it here in this thread!
Personally, I think you'd do better to avoid entirely the installation
of Recommends automatically, and take responsibility for deciding just
what you want installed. The Recommends and Suggests will be listed
when you install packages, and you can always reread their names from
the Packages files should you need reminding.
> I should not complain, not being a programmer and not being able to
> directly support Debian by myself, but... if you allow me to kindly
> complain... apt should really advance in this sense. Hopefully apt
> programmers are listening to us users and could make something
> possible. To me as an outsider it appears to be needed that apt-cache
> (?) would collect more information, collect for each package also with
> which option and at which date it was installed and why it was
> installed or drawn in, like by now it is only in the log files if you
> cared to strictly only use "apt" instead of "apt-cache" and "apt-get"
> directly.
I always use apt-get because the CLI interface is more stable. The
log records a timestamp, the command line, the packages' versions
(and whether they were automatic), and another timestamp. I suspect
that's exactly what you're seeing.
> Yes, a bigger work load on apt itself, but I really think it
> would be worth it. Just consider how many of us are forced to set up
> sophisticated backup strategies, or applying for this file system
> snapshot tools to act as a "time machine", while an enhanced apt could
> target this need in an easy an elegant fashion for the user (not
> speaking about the user's data and about the configuration of the
> packages, but speaking about the installation state of software
> packages)!
You seem to be suggesting a one-dimensional install/undo facility,
but an installation is a multi-dimensional graph of packages and
dependencies. It's rare that one would want to just backtrack through
a de-installation in the exact reverse order of installation.
I also think it would be difficult to support, as it would give
people unrealistic expectations of what's possible.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: