Bug#559194: Unused automatically installed packages don't get removed on upgrade
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 17:47, Uwe Storbeck <uwe@ibr.ch> wrote:
> On Mar 30, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> Common pratice is it to place a package in 'oldlibs' section as it
>> will be grabbed by deborphan then. You can switch the priority, too,
>> and the description should be changed.
>
> If this will be a policy obeyed by all packages the problem would
> be solved. deborphan would list the obsolete package and give you
> the hint to check it. That's not perfect, but still would give
> you all information to keep your system clean.
>
> So file the bug against the package which does not conform to this
> policy? Or is this "common practice" voluntarily?
As far as i know its just voluntary, but after all, IANAD{D,M},
so take everything i say with a bit of salt. I can at least not find
it in d-policy or any other official document…
>> If its priority extra, being in oldlibs and
>> the description says something about a transitional package,
>> it is way easier to hit 'yes'…
>
> Agreed. A clear policy for unique tagging or at least a unique
> description of obsolete packages instead of the current "dummy",
> "obsolete", "transitional", "can be removed safely" mess would
> be helpful too.
Which is properly the effect of not documenting the practice:
Everyone creates his own small policy on this…
>> Best at last: Now that support has landed in squeeze APT and
>> dpkg for 'disappearing packages', try this to avoid the transition
>> package mess alltogether.
>
> I did not know about that so far, thanks for the hint. On a first
> view it sounds somewhat dangerous for the consistency of package
> databases to me. I guess I would have preferred a clear policy
> and tagging for transitional packages instead. But that's going
> off-topic here ...
Its dpkg which does the disappearing on its own choice and APT just
has to react on it / present it afterwards to the user - if dpkg isn't able
to keep his own package database consistent i don't know who else
should be able to do it… but yeah, thats really a bit off-topic.
Reply to: