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 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
