Why is my package manager trying to remove fucking everything?

>>60599622
can't you read?
>the following packages are no longer required

>>60599622
only a retard will reply to you

>>60599644
Of course fucking gnome mahjongg isn't required you shit
Doesn't mean default behavior should be removing it

>>60599622
You've removed a package which depended on all these directly or indirectly.

Like

ubuntu-desktop

>>60599665
It didn't remove anything.

>>60599687

sudo apt install ubuntu-desktop

>>60599665
you illiterate
it tells you that shit is not required
it literally tells you
>use sudo apt autoremove to remove them
would you kindly hang yourself?

>>60599687
> It didn't remove anything.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, what I had meant to say was, the default behavior for dependencies should be that any program that can run on its own should not be added to auto remove list when a package that it itself was a dependency of was removed. I guess it's simple enough reason for this Behavior would be , for example, installing a desktop environment. When you install something like the full gnome Suite, it is completely understandable that uninstalling this would remove what came with it, but that doesn't really work as an argument because uninstalling the full gnome Suite is not going to restore your system to the same way it was before you installed it.

>>60599720
I feel like he knows what's going on, which is indicated by the word "trying" in the OP.

File: windows 10.png (210KB, 456x272px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 456x272px

Microsoft Windows 10™ does not have this GNU/problem, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus problem.

>>60599622
When you install a package as a dependency, i.e. anything not installed manually but pulled in, it's marked as auto installed. When the package(s) that pulled it in are removed, the dependencies are marked for autoremoval. This is so you don't have to manually track down and remove every package that other packages no longer depend on.

File: 97f.png (83KB, 680x471px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 680x471px

>system gets nuked by apt
>Switch to Gentoo
>Portage never has this problem

>>60599751
Yeah, no it actually should. That's proper package manement.

>>60599771
Wtf do you mean, how does your precious system react to removing an only dependency on a non-manually installed piece of software?

>>60599756
it is not trying it though?
it tells you that these are not needed and you "can" remove them if you want to
that's why i call him illiterate because he implies it goes and deletes shit

>>60599771
It's not a problem though. OP is apparently misinterpreting what is going on. He installed a DE and it pulled in a bunch of dependencies. When he tried to uninstall it the dependencies were orphaned. If he wants to remove them he can use apt autoremove to remove them like the instructions clearly state.

>>60599790
OP here. My system isn't nuked, tard. It's just a bad package manager option that I'm of course not going to go through with before marking the obvious necessary ones.

There's no functional difference between adding a flag to apt or adding

&& sudo apt autoremove

at the end. OP is arguing over semantics.

>>60599622
because you didn't install gentoo

File: have you read your notes.jpg (280KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1920x1080px

>>60599790

emerge -c

>>60599622
I did report something like it on #debian, I mean, #cancer. It's a major design flaw, if you try to remove "xfburn", it will flag the entire xfce as useless. Neither pacman/dnf/yum would do that.

>>60599622
apt not even once

>>60599883
dnf/yum both shit themselves when you try to remove an entire DE at least in my experience. I think it's just too difficult for these package managers to separate the base and packages from one another

>>60599883
You can simple edit out xfburn as a dependency of the xfce metapackage and it'll remove fine. You can do this for any package, so be careful and make sure it isn't an actual dependency, just bundled as one.

>>60599883
You can do that in Gentoo. It will want to put xfburn back in, but doesn't harass you more than that. Then you can tell it to assume xfburn is installed, whether it has its files or not.

>>60599917
But it's a serious issue, since xfburn is just a random cd burner. It shoudn't trigger the entire removal of xfce. Also If you try to remove "lightdm" (or any other default package) it will flag almost the entire system as useless, so 'apt-get autoremove' would break it.

>>60600017
>it will flag almost the entire system as useless
this is just apt doing something right for once

>>60600017
>It shouldn't trigger the entire removal of xfce.
Blame xfce for making xfburn a hard dependency instead of a recommend. This is a common problem with package maintainers, not apt.

>>60600397
Nope, it wont do on fedora, arch, manjaro.
It's a apt bugged thing called metapackage.

Windows doesnt have this problem

>>60599622
>install package along with many dependencies
>uninstall said package
>"these packages came with the package you just uninstalled, do you want to uninstall them too?"

not hard to understand OP

>>60599622

>apt

every fucking time

>>60599622
This looks a lot like a Linux distro running metal on a laptop, which would be very odd and not really a supported setup. You can't be too surprised when things go wrong; Linux isn't meant for this. Swap it out for Windows and things should work a lot better.

If I'm misinterpreting and you're ssh'd into something, just reimage and redeploy. It's quicker. I think it's running metal though, I don't know why you would have all this DE stuff on a server.

>>60600498
no, it breaks dependencies all on its own now.

File: wew.png (43KB, 960x531px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 960x531px

>>60600498
Actually it does faggot.

>>60600498
well this "problem" is actually intended functionality

so yeah your post is correct

>>60601176
It works very nicely in every respect besides system management (package managers and such).

>>60599622
>x100e
how's that lapburn anon

>>60601717
>Having the dual core model
How's that lack of ability to research what you buy, anon?

>>60601725
...there's a dual core x100e? prove it

I have a x120e

File: 1490313887524.jpg (140KB, 1552x1152px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1552x1152px

>>60601717
>>60601725
>>60601737
>chinkshit garbage

>all those dependencies for a desktop environment
honestly do ubuntucucks use linux just so they can say they use linux to sound cool?

If you don't want the features of meta packages (i.e things get auto installed as dependencies, and auto cleanup if removed) then DON'T USE THE META PACKAGES YOU RETARDS.
Install the packages stand alone, or go and mark the ones you want kept as 'manually installed'.

>>60599622
anon you goofed what did you do to mess up apt so badly

>>60602354
>ubuntu can't replace lightdm with gdm without ruining the whole system

>>60601176
>running windows
ha ha, good one

>>60599622
kek
that happens when you use debian

>>60599622
>tum
niggers don't actually name their children this, r-right?

>>60599751
I'm pretty sure the default/proper behavior for dependencies is that when you install an application that requires dependencies that are also installed, those dependencies remain on the system after uninstalling the application but become marked for removal, because the application(s) that depended on them are no longer present.

If you still use them then don't autoremove them, infact if there is a package in the autoremove queue you want to keep just apt-get install it.

because you're using ubuntu.

>>60599622
I'm not sure what you removed to trigger this, but if you copy past all of that in apt-get install <wall to text> it will fix the issue.

PSA: everyone remove "whoopsie" telemetry bullshit on all you're ubuntu boxes

File: XBEf9W.jpg (101KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 600x600px

>>60599645

>>60599622
If you want all that stuff apt-get install it. It will then be marked as manually installed.

I started with Ubuntu but shit like this is why went distro hopping until I found Arch. apt-get is a slow and unruly piece of shit

>>60603341
i can't spoiler here Anon but it's short for tummy