From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 26 05:24:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3BA16A4CE for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0D243D31 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:24:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rpratt1950@earthlink.net) Received: from user83.net364.fl.sprint-hsd.net ([65.40.49.83] helo=kt.weeble.com) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BI59m-0001gT-00; Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:24:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:25:06 -0400 From: Randy Pratt To: Jari Kirma Message-Id: <20040426082506.4949180e.rpratt1950@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Garbage collection of installed packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:24:21 -0000 On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:14:18 +0300 (EEST) Jari Kirma wrote: > > I have been observing how over long time, fbsd systems tend to gain > packages that have been installed as a dependency of some other package, > but later the original dependency leading to their installation has either > changed to something else or disappeared completely, leaving package > that's never explicitly installed nor required by any other package. So, > my question is, is there an easy way to recognise these "garbage" > packages? > > Only obvious way to do this, at least that I've thought of, would be to > have "explicitly required" flag in the package, or a dependency on a > special package which would contain all potentially top-level packages. > Problem with this, and all scenarios is that packages that would have > installed as "explicitly requred" (not as a dependency of some other > package) can be used, for instance by developers, without flagging them > explicitly required after all. Anyway, a suggestion more informed hint > about which installed packages are actually garbage, would be nice. (In > above scenario, such packages would be ones without explicitly required > flag and without any other packages requiring them.) Sounds like you're describing sysutils/pkg_cutleaves . Here's its description: "pkg_cutleaves finds installed 'leaf' packages, i.e. packages that are not referenced by any other installed package, and lets you decide for each one if you want to keep or deinstall it (via pkg_deinstall(1))." Randy