On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 15:55 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 04:13:56PM -0500, James Antill wrote: > > That helps, but then what? The user understands (s)he now has to find > > out how to fix it, and they have two options: > > > > 1) Some magic command to mark some/all of the unused deps. as used, > > and repeat as necessary the next time you hit this. > > > > 2) Change the config. from the current gamble of save $0.0001 of disk > > space on the upside, and hopefully only annoy the user a bit on the > > other. > > In the yum world, the user has two options too: > > 1) Some magic command to run after remove to remove the now unneeded > cruft. The vast majority of users don't care about saving that $0.0001 of disk space, so never need or want to run this and don't. > 2) Change the config. file from the current garbage dump of leaving > everything on the system Again, very few users want to. But, yes, if they really care about cleaning up everything possible they can change this config. if they want to ... as they could before. > and save considerable percent of time during > subsequent updates. The things removed (correctly) are the smallest leaf nodes, by definition. DNF currently still always downloads multiple MB filelists for every repo. refresh. If users cared a lot about update time they'd be using CentOS at best, but more likely Ubuntu. > I, for one, am not a collectioner of unused packages, thus I am all for > the dnf default. The former is fine. That's why you've been able to set that config. for some time, you care about that one weird thing and have an option to set it. But the later is forcing unsuspecting users, who don't care, to break their system and then the help they get is telling them to turn off the feature which broke it. I don't see an outcome there that helps you, and I don't see why you are for it. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
