Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-features (201 mails)

< Previous Next >
[openFATE 300758] Show orphaned packages
  • From: fate_noreply@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:59:43 +0200 (CEST)
  • Message-id: <feature-300758-62@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Feature changed by: Piotrek Juzwiak (BenderBendingRodriguez)
Feature #300758, revision 62
Title: Show orphaned packages

openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk)
reject date: 2006-08-02 11:31:19
reject reason: For SL10.2 we have to get libzypp really stable and fast
before we add new features.
Requester: Important

openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov)
reject date: 2007-07-17 17:03:57
reject reason: Postponing.
Requester: Important
Projectmanager: Desirable

openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov)
reject date: 2007-11-21 12:16:20
reject reason: Out of scope for 11.0
Requester: Important

openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov)
reject date: 2008-07-07 13:34:02
reject reason: Postponing, needs underlaying infrastructure to be fixed
Requester: Important

openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation
Requester: Important

Requested by: JP Rosevear (jproseve)

The package manager should learn to show orphanized packages (packages
which are not required by other packages and are not in wanted
selections) and allow to deinstall them like the popular
debfoster/deborphan tools.
A typical use case: user installs an application which pulls in some
dependencies to test it, uninstalls the application shortly after or
way later but the dependencies stay unused installed on the system.
Commandline UI (zypper) only.


#1: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-05 13:46:00)
Schubi, is there any possibility to make solver tell which packages are
orphanized? It would be interesting especially if the packages which
are marked for deletion were considered as non-installed (eg. if foo-
devel is installed but marked for deletion and nothing else requires
foo, then foo is orphanized).

#2: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 11:04:04) (reply to #1)
Currently not cause the solver has no information about who (user,
package,...) has triggered the installation of a package. If we are
storing this information it would be possible for solver to remove
these kind of packages too. It is not simple but doable. By the way, we
will have to store this kind of information in the future. E.g. we need
to save the "keep state by user" in a database in order to regard this
state in future solver runs.

#3: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-06 14:25:07) (reply to #2)
Looks like a missunderstanding.
Basically every package wihch is not required/recommended/suggested or
doesn't enhance anything that is installed and not marked for deletion
is IMO considered to be orphanized.
If user eg. wants to remove a pattern including all its packages (which
are not required by something else), solver providing this kind of
information would help a lot (and I don't think that we would need any
other information to be stored.

#4: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 15:33:44) (reply to #3)
I do not think so. What does "orphanized" mean ?
Let me take your example from comment #1.
foo should be deleted too if the user delete foo-devel and foo has been
installed due the requirement of foo-devel. BUT the user will kill us
if we are deleting foo although the user has installed foo explicit
sometime ago in a seperate installation workflow. So this information (
The USER has installed foo) will be currently not saved and is needed
here to decide if foo has to be deleted or not.

#5: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 15:39:47) (reply to #3)
Lets take your example concerning the erasing of patterns.
That is much more complex. I have already described the problem here:
" Proper behaviour of erasing patterns"
There are already some bugzilla entries: Bug 274283 - Delete iFolder
from YaST makes eDirectory Delete mandatory Bug 238250 - YaST does not
upgrade an Add-on Product

#6: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-08 16:46:32)
See also
This is another use case for the same solver functionality

#8: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:46:17)
this should be commandline-only, definitely an advanced-user option.

#9: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:47:28)
cut from description:
See Bug 140346

#10: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-11-03 11:24:53)
As discussed in Prague, this could be done using the package history
once we have a reader.

#11: Karsten König (remur) (2009-01-19 10:09:49)
How about using rpmorphan, I agree with flucifredi about the command
line idea...
And otherwise you could use their system to find orphanized packages
and display them in yast but make clear that deleting -all orphanized
packages will also delete the ones explicitly installed... (it only
detects wether the package fullfiles any requirement...)

#12: Ján Kupec (jkupec) (2009-01-19 14:48:38) (reply to #11)
I'm not the solver developer, but i'm pretty sure it's easy (and
probably more effective) to find the 'leaf' packages (that's what
rpmorphan seems to do) using existing solver (see satsolver package).
But we don't want to just highlight leaf packages, we want to remove
unused packages, that is all leaves minus those explicitly installed.
So we will feed the solver with this 'explicitly-installed'
information. The package history will be the source of this info for
now. Maybe later we find some way to store this info that could be used
across tools (e.g. directly in the rpm db). So rpmorphan will be able
to use this info as well.

#13: Pavol Rusnak (prusnak) (2009-01-19 15:44:26) (reply to #12)
Yes, that's good idea. Detecting leaf packages is the first step.
Detecting which ones to remove (i.e. not explicitly installed) is the
I think that rpmorphan shows all leaf packages, but it selects only the
ones that start with "lib". If we strictly followed library packaging
policy that would do the trick.
btw. rpmorphan is packaged in Contrib

#14: Michal Smrž (ilfirin) (2009-03-07 20:05:22) (reply to #11)
I am afraid of using rpmorphan to do this. Cause last time, I tested
it, it wants to remove libdvdnav and libdvdcss libraries. This is very
bad. It leads to many not advanced users to ask in phorums "Why
OpenSUSE is not playing DVDs anymore?"
I see many problems this could make.

#15: Christoph Thiel (cthiel1) (2009-04-21 15:23:06)
We don't have the resources to implementing this. Seems to be a prefect
fit for a community project.

+ #17: Piotrek Juzwiak (benderbendingrodriguez) (2009-04-22 07:58:47)
+ Maybe the idea to accomplish this would be simply by using the packages.
+ xml file and diff it. We can already export what packages we got right?
+ So if it would compare the packages.xml before installation and after
+ it would then delete it. There is a problem when installing many
+ packages, they would all have to be "grouped" which pulled which
+ dependencies.

openSUSE Feature:

< Previous Next >