Orphaned Package Removal
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
After running GtkOrphan it provides a list of 8 packages suggested for removal.
Are there likely to be any undesirable consequences in removing any of these using the tools provided within the utility?
Output from running dpkg -l | grep ^rc:
rc linux-image-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Signed kernel image generic
rc linux-modules-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
rc linux-modules-extra-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
Running aptitude from the terminal with no parameters produces:
18.04 upgrade
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
add a comment |
After running GtkOrphan it provides a list of 8 packages suggested for removal.
Are there likely to be any undesirable consequences in removing any of these using the tools provided within the utility?
Output from running dpkg -l | grep ^rc:
rc linux-image-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Signed kernel image generic
rc linux-modules-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
rc linux-modules-extra-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
Running aptitude from the terminal with no parameters produces:
18.04 upgrade
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
add a comment |
After running GtkOrphan it provides a list of 8 packages suggested for removal.
Are there likely to be any undesirable consequences in removing any of these using the tools provided within the utility?
Output from running dpkg -l | grep ^rc:
rc linux-image-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Signed kernel image generic
rc linux-modules-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
rc linux-modules-extra-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
Running aptitude from the terminal with no parameters produces:
18.04 upgrade
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
After running GtkOrphan it provides a list of 8 packages suggested for removal.
Are there likely to be any undesirable consequences in removing any of these using the tools provided within the utility?
Output from running dpkg -l | grep ^rc:
rc linux-image-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Signed kernel image generic
rc linux-modules-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
rc linux-modules-extra-4.18.0-15-generic 4.18.0-15.16~18.04.1 amd64 Linux kernel extra modules for version 4.18.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP
Running aptitude from the terminal with no parameters produces:
18.04 upgrade
18.04 upgrade
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
edited 12 hours ago
Graham
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
asked 15 hours ago
GrahamGraham
2,30561629
2,30561629
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I have just tested GtkOrphan on my system. And it seems that GtkOrphan is dumber than
apt-get autoremove -s or aptitude search '?obsolete' (see help page for full syntax)
On my system I see that only 1 package out of 18 is correctly marked as orphan by GtkOrphan.
As far I can understand the real obsolete or locally installed package do not have any http/https/ftp link in apt-cache policy ... output. It should have only /var/lib/dpkg/status in the version table.
So we can filter output of deborphan by using some scripting (modified version of this one):
cat > find_orphan.sh << EOF
LC_ALL=C dpkg-query --showformat='${Package}:${Status}n' -W $@ |
fgrep ':install ok installed' | cut -d: -f1 |
(while read pkg; do inst_version=$(apt-cache policy $pkg
| fgrep Installed:
| awk '{ print $2 }'); origin=$(apt-cache policy "$pkg"
| fgrep " *** ${inst_version}" -C1
| tail -n 1
| cut -c12-); echo $pkg $origin; done)
EOF
sh find_orphan.sh $(deborphan) | grep "/var/lib/dpkg/status" | awk '{print $1}'
or do not use GtkOrphan at all and rely on Aptitude with its Obsolete and Locally Created Packages
or aptitude search '?obsolete':
i rstudio - RStudio
The related bug may be the following - bug 1820906.
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
1
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
1
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1133811%2forphaned-package-removal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I have just tested GtkOrphan on my system. And it seems that GtkOrphan is dumber than
apt-get autoremove -s or aptitude search '?obsolete' (see help page for full syntax)
On my system I see that only 1 package out of 18 is correctly marked as orphan by GtkOrphan.
As far I can understand the real obsolete or locally installed package do not have any http/https/ftp link in apt-cache policy ... output. It should have only /var/lib/dpkg/status in the version table.
So we can filter output of deborphan by using some scripting (modified version of this one):
cat > find_orphan.sh << EOF
LC_ALL=C dpkg-query --showformat='${Package}:${Status}n' -W $@ |
fgrep ':install ok installed' | cut -d: -f1 |
(while read pkg; do inst_version=$(apt-cache policy $pkg
| fgrep Installed:
| awk '{ print $2 }'); origin=$(apt-cache policy "$pkg"
| fgrep " *** ${inst_version}" -C1
| tail -n 1
| cut -c12-); echo $pkg $origin; done)
EOF
sh find_orphan.sh $(deborphan) | grep "/var/lib/dpkg/status" | awk '{print $1}'
or do not use GtkOrphan at all and rely on Aptitude with its Obsolete and Locally Created Packages
or aptitude search '?obsolete':
i rstudio - RStudio
The related bug may be the following - bug 1820906.
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
1
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
1
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
add a comment |
I have just tested GtkOrphan on my system. And it seems that GtkOrphan is dumber than
apt-get autoremove -s or aptitude search '?obsolete' (see help page for full syntax)
On my system I see that only 1 package out of 18 is correctly marked as orphan by GtkOrphan.
As far I can understand the real obsolete or locally installed package do not have any http/https/ftp link in apt-cache policy ... output. It should have only /var/lib/dpkg/status in the version table.
So we can filter output of deborphan by using some scripting (modified version of this one):
cat > find_orphan.sh << EOF
LC_ALL=C dpkg-query --showformat='${Package}:${Status}n' -W $@ |
fgrep ':install ok installed' | cut -d: -f1 |
(while read pkg; do inst_version=$(apt-cache policy $pkg
| fgrep Installed:
| awk '{ print $2 }'); origin=$(apt-cache policy "$pkg"
| fgrep " *** ${inst_version}" -C1
| tail -n 1
| cut -c12-); echo $pkg $origin; done)
EOF
sh find_orphan.sh $(deborphan) | grep "/var/lib/dpkg/status" | awk '{print $1}'
or do not use GtkOrphan at all and rely on Aptitude with its Obsolete and Locally Created Packages
or aptitude search '?obsolete':
i rstudio - RStudio
The related bug may be the following - bug 1820906.
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
1
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
1
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
add a comment |
I have just tested GtkOrphan on my system. And it seems that GtkOrphan is dumber than
apt-get autoremove -s or aptitude search '?obsolete' (see help page for full syntax)
On my system I see that only 1 package out of 18 is correctly marked as orphan by GtkOrphan.
As far I can understand the real obsolete or locally installed package do not have any http/https/ftp link in apt-cache policy ... output. It should have only /var/lib/dpkg/status in the version table.
So we can filter output of deborphan by using some scripting (modified version of this one):
cat > find_orphan.sh << EOF
LC_ALL=C dpkg-query --showformat='${Package}:${Status}n' -W $@ |
fgrep ':install ok installed' | cut -d: -f1 |
(while read pkg; do inst_version=$(apt-cache policy $pkg
| fgrep Installed:
| awk '{ print $2 }'); origin=$(apt-cache policy "$pkg"
| fgrep " *** ${inst_version}" -C1
| tail -n 1
| cut -c12-); echo $pkg $origin; done)
EOF
sh find_orphan.sh $(deborphan) | grep "/var/lib/dpkg/status" | awk '{print $1}'
or do not use GtkOrphan at all and rely on Aptitude with its Obsolete and Locally Created Packages
or aptitude search '?obsolete':
i rstudio - RStudio
The related bug may be the following - bug 1820906.
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
I have just tested GtkOrphan on my system. And it seems that GtkOrphan is dumber than
apt-get autoremove -s or aptitude search '?obsolete' (see help page for full syntax)
On my system I see that only 1 package out of 18 is correctly marked as orphan by GtkOrphan.
As far I can understand the real obsolete or locally installed package do not have any http/https/ftp link in apt-cache policy ... output. It should have only /var/lib/dpkg/status in the version table.
So we can filter output of deborphan by using some scripting (modified version of this one):
cat > find_orphan.sh << EOF
LC_ALL=C dpkg-query --showformat='${Package}:${Status}n' -W $@ |
fgrep ':install ok installed' | cut -d: -f1 |
(while read pkg; do inst_version=$(apt-cache policy $pkg
| fgrep Installed:
| awk '{ print $2 }'); origin=$(apt-cache policy "$pkg"
| fgrep " *** ${inst_version}" -C1
| tail -n 1
| cut -c12-); echo $pkg $origin; done)
EOF
sh find_orphan.sh $(deborphan) | grep "/var/lib/dpkg/status" | awk '{print $1}'
or do not use GtkOrphan at all and rely on Aptitude with its Obsolete and Locally Created Packages
or aptitude search '?obsolete':
i rstudio - RStudio
The related bug may be the following - bug 1820906.
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
edited 11 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
answered 14 hours ago
N0rbertN0rbert
25.4k853121
25.4k853121
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
1
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
1
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
add a comment |
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
1
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
1
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
in terminal using: sudo aptitude does not indicate any -- Obsolete Packages and aptitude search '?obsolete' : neither so I guess from your answer, it is best to leave matters well alone.
– Graham
11 hours ago
1
1
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
So it seems that deborphan is a bit buggy :) There is no need to remove any packages.
– N0rbert
11 hours ago
1
1
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
Very much appreciated and an ideal candidate to keep for reference.
– Graham
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1133811%2forphaned-package-removal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
