On 1.12.2015 13:25, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 12/01/2015 10:02 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: >> On 1.12.2015 08:20, 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". >> >> Maybe it would help if these auto-removed packages are clearly marked as such >> in summary printed by DNF. >> >> Currently the output looks like this: >> $ dnf remove ekiga >> Dependencies resolved. >> ============================================================= >> Removing: >> ekiga x86_64 4.0.1-17.fc22 @fedora 19 M >> evolution-data-server x86_64 3.16.5-1.fc22 @updates 14 M >> geocode-glib x86_64 3.16.2-1.fc22 @fedora 160 k >> gnome-online-accounts x86_64 3.16.4.1-1.fc22 @updates 4.0 M >> libgdata x86_64 0.17.3-1.fc22 @updates 1.7 M >> ... and so on >> >> It would be easier to understand if it printed: >> >> $ dnf remove ekiga >> Dependencies resolved. >> ============================================================= >> Removing: >> ekiga x86_64 4.0.1-17.fc22 @fedora 19 M >> Removing unused dependencies: >> evolution-data-server x86_64 3.16.5-1.fc22 @updates 14 M >> geocode-glib x86_64 3.16.2-1.fc22 @fedora 160 k >> gnome-online-accounts x86_64 3.16.4.1-1.fc22 @updates 4.0 M >> libgdata x86_64 0.17.3-1.fc22 @updates 1.7 M >> >> ... and so on >> > > Yes, that'd be MUCH better. > > We're all so conditioned to the yum behavior that anything else seems > suspicious even if it (removing unused cruft) is actually a sane thing to do. I totally agree with you. Hopefully most of the backlash can be mitigated with small improvements to user interface like this one ^^^. -- Petr Spacek @ Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
