On 7/27/07, Topher <javert42@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Couldn't this been done with reference counting, like is done with > garbage collection? It seems to me to be applicable, proven, and simple. Reference counting what exactly? Keeping up with the number of dependencies on a package is not hard. In fact we already have tools that find leaves in the tree. That's not the problem. The problem is protecting leaves that users care about from auto-cleanup. If we just vacuumed up leaf nodes in the packaging tree willy-nilly normal users would see applications they care about depopulated from the menus. Developers would see libraries and development packages they need depopulated from their workstations. If we had a way to protect certain leaves in the tree from auto-cleanup, then we avoid all of these complications. The only way we know if a user cares about a package is if it was explicitly requested to be installed (or explicitly told the rpmdb to protect that package from auto-cleanup if we want to get picky). Right now the is no way to query rpmdb about whether a package was installed explicitly or was implicitly included through depsolving. That's the key idea here... marking the 10% or so of packages a user/admin/trained-monkey has explicitly asked to be installed/protected so that we can auto garbage collect we aren't throwing out things we care about. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
