Historical bug tracker for the Pacman package manager.
The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues
This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues
This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
FS#42086 - Marking an orphaned packages as depenendency of another program.
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by Gordian Edenhofer (Edenhofer) - Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 13:44 GMT
Last edited by Andrew Gregory (andrewgregory) - Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 18:32 GMT
Opened by Gordian Edenhofer (Edenhofer) - Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 13:44 GMT
Last edited by Andrew Gregory (andrewgregory) - Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 18:32 GMT
|
DetailsSummary and Info:
The "--asdeps and --asexplicit" flag of "pacman -D" offers you to mark packages, once installed as a dependency, to be reassigned as explicitly installed and vice versa. While this is great for a couple of reasons it is as bad when it comes to cleaning your host from orphaned packages (e.g. using "pacman -Qdtq"). When defining the installation reason of an optional dependency as dep you would get it listet as orphaned although it truly is not. I would therefore recommend to introduce a new option; something like "--asdepof <package(s)1> <package(s)2>" which would mark package(s)1 to be a needed dependency of the specified package(s)2. This would also come in handy in other cases: Let's say you want the GNU Image Manipulation Program (short: "gimp") to be installed as long as there is the "gnome-session" package on your machine. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Andrew Gregory (andrewgregory)
Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 18:32 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Tuesday, 23 September 2014, 18:32 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
The other case I am not convinced by...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[USER@XXXYYY:~]$ pacman -Qtd
cups 1.7.5-1
dosbox 0.74-6
hplip-plugin 3.14.6-3
lib32-alsa-plugins 1.0.28-1 <-------------------
lib32-giflib 5.1.0-1
lib32-gnutls 3.3.7-1
lib32-lcms2 2.6-1
lib32-libcl 1.1-1
lib32-libpulse 5.0-1
lib32-libxcomposite 0.4.4-2
lib32-libxinerama 1.1.3-1
lib32-libxslt 1.1.28-2
lib32-mpg123 1.20.1-1
lib32-openal 1.16.0-1
lib32-v4l-utils 1.2.1-1
python2-notify 0.1.1-13
python2-pillow 2.5.3-2
python2-pyqt4 4.11.2-1
python2-reportlab 3.1.8-1
rpcbind 0.2.1-5
samba 4.1.12-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here I just picked a random item of the above list to make the output shorter. One could also use "pacman -Rns $(pacman -Qtdq)" which would try to remove every orphaned packages, which in my case aren't orphaned at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[USER@XXXYYY:~]$ pacman -Rns lib32-alsa-plugins
checking dependencies...
:: lib32-libpulse optionally requires lib32-alsa-plugins: ALSA support
:: wine optionally requires lib32-alsa-plugins <--------------------
Packages (1): lib32-alsa-plugins-1.0.28-1
Total Removed Size: 0.18 MiB
:: Do you want to remove these packages? [Y/n] n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they should not be listed my query would be a bug and I am going to reallocate it.