On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 15:44 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 12/02/2015 02:42 PM, David Tardon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:20:34AM -0500, Dan Book wrote:
> > I have run into this before and it was very confusing, it really
> > should be
> > a separate command from remove for when you actually want to
> > remove what
> > dnf thinks is now "unused".
>
> Why? Remove is the opposite of install. "dnf install foo" will
> install
> package foo _and_ all its dependencies. So it is only logical that
> "dnf remove foo" should remove package foo _and_ all its (unneeded)
> dependencies.
Maybe it is not so simple.
There are dependencies with no use apart the main tool (tool requires
tool-libs),
but in some cases the dependency is useful on its own (e.g. fonts).
So, I counter your reasoning with this:
- dnf install foo (also installs bar)
- dnf install bar (oops, already installed, good)
- dnf remove foo (wow, why did it remove bar, I explicitly
"installed" it yesterday!)
Is dnf able to recognize that bar was "wanted" and not "accidental"?
There's "dnf mark install bar" for that.
And I **think** that it's automatically done when you installed bar in
your second command above. (if it isn't it probably should be)
--
Mathieu