More strange F9 dependencies
john wendel
jwendel10 at comcast.net
Fri Nov 21 04:09:24 UTC 2008
Beartooth wrote:
> I have no PDA, nor expect ever to, much less hardware to connect
> it to a PC.
>
> When I was working, and literally running my life on rails, its
> ancestors, then called organizers, were fine things; I had a whole series
> of them.
>
> Those who want or need them are welcome to them; strength to
> their arms. Theirs, not mine. To an old retired fart without a schedule,
> a PDA or even a fancy phone is a dispensable expense, and thus cruft at
> best, if not a security liability. So I tried to cut.
>
> [root at Hbsk2 ~]# yum remove bluez-*
> [....]
> Dependencies Resolved
>
> ================================================================================
> Package Arch Version Repository
> Size
> ================================================================================
> Removing:
> bluez-libs i386 3.36-1.fc9 installed
> 126 k
> bluez-utils-cups i386 3.36-1.fc9
> installed 40 k
> Removing for dependencies:
> gnome-user-share i386 0.31-1.fc9 installed
> 219 k
> gvfs i386 0.2.5-1.fc9 installed
> 3.5 M
> gvfs-fuse i386 0.2.5-1.fc9
> installed 25 k
> libwiimote i386 0.4-6.fc9
> installed 46 k
> nautilus i386 2.22.5.1-1.fc9
> installed 15 M
> obex-data-server i386 1:0.3.4-1.fc9 installed
> 145 k
> xorg-x11-drivers i386 7.3-4.fc9
> installed 0.0
> xorg-x11-drv-wiimote i386 0.0.1-1.fc9
> installed 12 k
>
> Transaction Summary
> ================================================================================
> Install 0 Package(s)
> Update 0 Package(s)
> Remove 10 Package(s)
>
> Is this ok [y/N]: n
> Exiting on user Command
>
> Some of those dependencies certainly make sense, and others look
> likely to. Some of them. I grant that.
>
> Some make mud seem clear. I don't understand, despite googling,
> what gvfs is or does. I know only that it too threatened to take a long
> list of indispensable apps with it if removed -- and that the gnome
> system monitor always shows some half dozen of its creatures, sleeping.
>
> But what of nautilus? It would be fine for bluez to depend on it;
> but why should it depend on bluez?? Is someone going to tell me that
> pango uses bluez, with or without hardware? And then sneer down his nose
> that I'm welcome to write new code??
>
> What ever became of linux being tailorable??
>
There's no need to be at the mercy of a package maintainer. Ever hear of
"rpm -e --nodeps <worthless-package>". Works most of the time for me.
And if it breaks, just reinstall the worthless-package.
Regards,
John
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list