On 2021-03-11 at 09:11:34 +0100, Reto via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11 March 2021 08:54:16 CET, Matthias Bodenbinder <matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >Your example is not valid. Because the two different definitions of an > >orphan are within the same context: arch package management. Depending > >on which repo you are getting the package from an orphan is this or > >that. That is ambigious. > > Except it really isn't the same context... > > The AUR is a repository for package recipes, the build files only. > > If you look at the definition you gave from pacman > > orphans - packages that were installed as dependencies but are no longer required by any installed package. > > That makes absolutely no sense for a build recipe, it simply can't refer to the same thing. > You don't install pkgbuild instructions and a repo of those doesn't have things installed. Suppose I install packages big-application and useful-library from AUR, and big-application depends on useful-library. Then I uninstall big-application, and useful-library's maintainer abandons it. Now useful-library on my system is a orphan under both definitions, so if all I say is that useful-library is an orphan, then the context to which I am referring is, in fact, ambiguous. Often, though, the context is given by, well, the context of my statement. > So no, package building and package installation aren't the same context, even if related.
