[Solved] Application removal in synaptic, a quick question...

[cdbc]

Hello

In synaptic, when i want to remove an application, i get two choices: "Mark for removal" and "Mark for Complete removal"
What exactly is the difference between the two?!?

TIA Regards Benny

[aguila]

Is that correct? I remember a threat by Crow (or was it ElCuervo?) where his kids had uninstalled a software using " mark for complete removal" and ended up with troubles because some libs had been removed that where used by other programs also.

[Just17]

Is that correct? I remember a threat by Crow (or was it ElCuervo?) where his kids had uninstalled a software using " mark for complete removal" and ended up with troubles because some libs had been removed that where used by other programs also.

Something like this should only occur if those remaining packages were dependent on the removed libs, and their dependencies were not listed when the packages were built.

If the dependencies were listed then those other packages should also be removed ......  in other words, removing a lib through Synaptic should also remove any package dependent upon it.

In the case like you have recalled, it seems to me, there were some packages that were improperly built (dependencies not listed at build time).

[agmg]

Lets say you install a package that has some dependencies and you want to uninstall it afterwards, along with those dependencies.
Which is the best way to do that?

[rich2005]

What I have done in the past is look at synaptic history and see what dependencies have been pulled in for that particular application.

Then go down the list and mark for uninstall.

Best not wait too long between installation and removal or there is a chance of screwing something else.

[agmg]

I'm talking about the case that you install a program, play with it for a while and decide that you no longer need or want it. I use that "history" feature too but wanted to know if there is an easier way to do this with Synaptic.

Is there a case that some libraries installed by a specific program can cause problems to another in the future? Won't there be a warning or sth if I try to remove anything useful?

[kjpetrie]

I don't think there's any difference between removal and complete removal with rpms. I think the two options have different meanings when Synaptic is used with debs in other distributions.

If you remove something important, you will know by the huge list of vital packages Synaptic will also want to remove. If a package is a dependency of something you want to keep, you will see a message asking you if you want to remove that something. In either case, just cancel.

[agmg]

Thank you both guys!  

But, complete removal doesn't uninstall libraries that were just installed along with a program. How can I completely revert such an installation, except using "history" and searching for those libraries manually?

[Just17]

Thank you both guys!  

But, complete removal doesn't uninstall libraries that were just installed along with a program. How can I completely revert such an installation, except using "history" and searching for those libraries manually?

Only using the History as far as I am aware ...... when using Synaptic

Is there a case that some libraries installed by a specific program can cause problems to another in the future?

Anything is possible ......  but it is highly unlikely, particularly if you stick to installing packages only from the repository.

[aguila]

Sorry for starting this confusion here, but I sure have learned something.

There surely exist tools to scan for "orphaned" libraries, aren't there?

Reading the above as "if you want to remove a program and don't intend to reinstall it later, mark for complete removal is a safe option in PCLinuxOS."

[AS]

There surely exist tools to scan for "orphaned" libraries, aren't there?

rpmorphan (not really useful):
http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php/topic,101756.msg866463.html#msg866463

AS

[cdbc]

Thanks alot guys, for all your answers/opinions 

Regards Benny

[Xenaflux]

The Mark for Complete Removal option instructs Synaptic to remove any configuration files associated with the package as well

Ahum...Ahum

Install Ktorrent....go to Settings/configure Ktorrent
Configure 10 settings
Then "Competely remove Ktorrent". This is supposed to remove ALL.
You can trow in an old-fasioned reboot if you like

Now, Install Ktorrent again.
I still see my configuration from last time, and not the default one

So:The Mark for Complete Removal option instructs Synaptic......
That is correct, but Synaptic does not do it...in the case of Ktorrent at least.

Found out about a month ago.

Please note, this is just an observation

[Just17]

The Mark for Complete Removal option instructs Synaptic to remove any configuration files associated with the package as well

Ahum...Ahum

Install Ktorrent....go to Settings/configure Ktorrent
Configure 10 settings
Then "Competely remove Ktorrent". This is supposed to remove ALL.
You can trow in an old-fasioned reboot if you like

Now, Install Ktorrent again.
I still see my configuration from last time, and not the default one

So:The Mark for Complete Removal option instructs Synaptic......
That is correct, but Synaptic does not do it...in the case of Ktorrent at least.

Found out about a month ago.

Please note, this is just an observation

Synaptic does not completely remove all files associated with an installed package .......  and I cannot recall that it ever did .....  regardless of which remove option is selected.

[TerryN]

Now, Install Ktorrent again.
I still see my configuration from last time, and not the default one

There are often 2 sets of config files:

System wide - which usually live somewhere under /usr/share or /etc
User specific - which live under $HOME sometimes in a hidden folder.

Often the app will use the system wide config as a template to create the user specific config.

Complete removal will only remove the system wide config files and even then only if they have been marked as config files (%config) in the package.  Stuff under $HOME is not touched unless the packager explicitly adds script to do it.  That would be highly unusual.

Terry.