On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:42 AM, David Tardon <dtardon@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi,

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.

Because 1. this behavior has never been default before, and 2. it is just as logical for "remove" to be the opposite of "install" like so: Install installs foo and its dependencies, remove removes foo and any packages depending on it. And this is exactly how it has to work, so it is expected.

Anyway the proposal in another thread, to specify in the list that the extra removals are because they are unneeded dependencies, and not just more removals, would solve a lot of the confusion.

D.

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