making deborphan obsolete?

[Derek Broughton]

Lutzer wrote:

> My understanding of Ubuntu's philosophy is it should "just work". IMHO
> the system should remain slim and clean even for a newbie who is not
> aware of such a problem. Because most of the users use apt-get (it is
> widely used in HOWTOs: "To get rid of problem X execute 'sudo apt-get
> install Y' and do Z") or Synaptic/Aptitude the problem still remains.

It may be Ubuntu's problem if Synaptic is not actually using Aptitude itself
(I don't use Synaptic, but last time I checked, it didn't).

However, the solution is still aptitude.  It's not ubuntu's fault that HowTo
writers refuse to get with the program and write "aptitude" instead
of "apt-get".  If you created some other program that wasn't aptitude,
deborphan or debfoster, how do you think you'd change the fact that people
are still giving bad advice?  Deborphan (and debfoster) _is_ obsolete on my
system.  You won't find unused packages here.

> Even Windows asks if an unused DLL should be removed when it's
> application is removed.

Windows asks if a DLL _it believes_ is unused should be removed - but it
admits it really doesn't know if it's unused!  Aptitude _will_ get it right
(though only if you _always_ use aptitude).
-- 
derek