On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro HronĨok wrote:
>>> As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
>>> significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in the
>>> choice of defaults, choice of build flags, or whatever. Honestly
>>> delivering as modules-vs-non-modules is a completely trivial issue
>>> compared to most of the stuff I spend time on. If "yum install
X"
>>> still works most people just don't care about the RPM/dnf/repo
>>> mechanics behind that.
>>
>> Except it works only half way. The installation works. Later,
>> dependencies are broken. Upgrades are broken. "yum remove X" does not
>> undo the action completely.
>>
>> The main issue is: user just enabled a module without doing it
>> explicitly. The user needs to know how to handle modules in order to
>> recover.
>
> I never expect "yum remove X" to be the inverse of "yum install
> X". DNF's magical leaf tracking makes it a bit more so, but not
> exactly. So, I don't think we should make that a very high priority
> concern (although if we can improve it, so much the better).
I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation, especially for those
coming from APT land (Debian, Ubuntu) where `apt install foo` *is* the
inverse operation of `apt remove foo`.
It isn't, you need to supplement it with `apt autoremove` to get rid
of auto-installed dependencies.
We have `dnf history undo X` to invert installation command.
--
Tomasz .. oo o. oo o. .o .o o. o. oo o. ..
Torcz .. .o .o .o .o oo oo .o .. .. oo oo
o.o.o. .o .. o. o. o. o. o. o. oo .. .. o.