Hi Poplar, Am 09.03.25 um 21:41 schrieb Poplar.at.twilight:
The normal thing to do is to install firefox, and then chrome. If you do not want to install firefox because it is big, then install any of the text alternatives: w3m, lynx, links... They are tiny.
Hi,
Thanks for your suggestion. My current solution is to remove and lock all recommended browser packages. I don't want these never-to-be-used packages to be actively introduced to my computer.
you could try if "zypper al web_browser" would be good enough (remove all other locks, then try again). All these packages provide "web_browser". I guess that *some* pattern you have installed recommends web_browser. In my case it is ~> rpm -q --whatrecommends web_browser patterns-base-x11_enhanced-20241218-3.1.x86_64 it might also be enough if you just remove the pattern package that recommends it.
The issue was triggered by zypper's algorithm, so I shared it on the factory mailing list instead of the openSUSE forums as a feedback.
It's not really zyppers algorithm, it's the metadata of the installed packages.
I'm not sure what changes would need to be made to the code to make zypper stop pushing recommended packages of the same type to users once it detects a user-installed, non-official source rpm package. But I think it's important to say something about this so that developers can at least see what's happening in the end-use scenario.
You can always set the "--no-recommends" switch somewhere in the zypper config (sorry, don't know the exact place, my muscle memory has just been trained to always use --no-recommends on everything zypper involving installaton, including "patch", "install", "dup", ... ;-) The thing is, that these recommendations (even though *I personally* do disregard them to get a leaner system) are there for a reason: to provide a polished experience to the average user, without them having to sort out why certain kinds of files don't open or display after a default installation etc. Your usecase is at least as special as mine, so you probably need to tune the system slightly. And as you are concerned about a 2MB package like w3m wasting precious resources on your installation, I'd guess that you are totally in the market for "--no-recommends" anyway :-) For now, I'd really go for (in that order): * back up and then remove your existing locks * find out what recommends web_browser and remove that if possible * add a lock on "web_browser" Only if all this does not help / is not feasible, then maintain your extensive list of locks. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman