Some ubuntu packages need to be protected

[sandyd]

I believe that there should be some packages in ubuntu that **should** be protected, meaning that the user will have to comfirm the removal, after reading its possible effects.
This can probably stop the amount of people from removing network-manager &like

1. Synaptic/Software Center should emit warnings to users if they attempt to remove a package that could possibly cripple their system, along with the possible effects of removing it. This warning can be turned off through the editing of synaptic settings or from a config file if the user doesn't find them useful.

2. Cache Network-Manager/Other important apps in the apt-archives as part of the postrm script

A lot of users want to try another networking manager such as Wicd to see if it would fix their networking problems. However, if it doesn't, and they are left with no internet, they will have to manually copy over network-manager on to the computer. This is highly non-user friendly behaviour. If network-manager is in the apt-cache, reinstalling it should be a breeze. The network-manager takes up less than 1mb here, so there shouldn't be problems regarding space

3. Synaptic/Software Center should have a "undo changes" option.

I have seen a lot of users simply click "ok" even though they were unintentionally removing tons of packages. In the end, they would have to look through the logs for the packages, which is also highly user-unfriendly behaviour. The "undo changes" button would allow users to undo changes "a step at a time", without jumping around, in order to prevent them from making a bigger mess. This also allows users to remove packages that may have fried their system without them needing to remember the packagename
[...]

All of this may seem like a long haulover, but it is better for newcomers to Linux (Most of this stuff won't affect experienced users anyway because of the option to turn these warnings off)

Vote Here -> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/25328/

[chessnerd]

Agreed.

I actually uninstalled the network manager to install the LX Network Manager and, when I had trouble with the LXNM, I couldn't reinstall it. Eventually, I got the LXNM working, but still, I could have broken my system.

[3rdalbum]

Some people purposely remove Network Manager, although I do question their reasons to.

Python should definitely be protected. Lots of people install Python 2.5 and remove 2.4, ignoring the warnings that 200 packages will be removed, and then their system is borked.

[earthpigg]

this is all already possible, but only for nerds like us and those willing to become nerds like us.

general outline of your idea, assuming the user is using default/intended/noobfriendly ubuntu methods of doing stuff:

1)
any package that is a dependency of ubuntu-desktop, when removed in the software center, will automatically be first downloaded to /var/cache/apt/archives.

2)
the software center needs some new functionality that we shall call "undo software changes" or something like that. it looks at the log files in /var/log/apt, an streamlines the process of undoing things. a good start could be a simple list of things done/undone that have been noted in the /var/log/apt log files, with little check boxes next to them. right click and "undo this" or "redo this". i would advocate that it only allow the user to do these things in reverse-chronological order, and disallow skipping things. if you did stuff that screwed ur computer up, then installed wesnoth, then want to undo the stuff that screwed ur computer up... reverse order. so: first you must "undo" installing wesnoth wesnoth, then you can undo whatever it was you did.

sounds annoying, but since all mistakes can obviously not be anticipated, it will make "undo software changes" less-likely to be as damaging as the current "computer janitor" is when used by non-nerds. if you let people jump around and undo package changes, they will do themselves more harm than good. someone that is knowledgeable enough to exactly identify what they did that screwed things up by reading the apt history logs... wont be using ubuntu software center to repair his/her system, anyways. so, for everyone else, ubuntu software center could let you undo all the package changes one set at a time in reverse chronological order.

leave dotfiles in place, of course, unless the user selects "completely undo this change".

[earthpigg]

Python should definitely be protected. Lots of people install Python 2.5 and remove 2.4, ignoring the warnings that 200 packages will be removed, and then their system is borked.

i have the controversial opinion that Linux should allow multiple versions of the same package in cases like this. i don't give a damn if it is theoretically "less elegant", nor do i care how much it bothers OCD types.

it's practical.

the package manager needs to ask itself: "are there any packages installed that claim to require this specific version of this package?"

if the answer is yes, than install the new package while keeping the old one. (instead of uninstalling 200 packages and then installing the new version of _____).

[Dustin2128]

I do think it should be disabled by default, but to be completely unremovable, that's wrong. And is the system janitor really suggesting removal of vital packages? If so, I don't think it should be included in 10.10/11.04 (unless/until its fixed).

[sandyd]

I do think it should be disabled by default, but to be completely unremovable, that's wrong. And is the system janitor really suggesting removal of vital packages? If so, I don't think it should be included in 10.10/11.04 (unless/until its fixed).

it doesnt actually remove network-manager. It just removed one of network-manager's dependencies which caused network-manager to be removed as well. this is what we call "dependency hell". as for the unremovable section, were not really making it non-removable. were just caching the app, so we can install it later even if there are distasterous consequences associated with the app removal (if you remove network-manager, you will have no internet, and downloading each individual package and its dependencies becomes a pain in the ***)

[sandyd]

i have the controversial opinion that Linux should allow multiple versions of the same package in cases like this. i don't give a damn if it is theoretically "less elegant", nor do i care how much it bothers OCD types.

it's practical.

the package manager needs to ask itself: "are there any packages installed that claim to require this specific version of this package?"

if the answer is yes, than install the new package while keeping the old one. (instead of uninstalling 200 packages and then installing the new version of _____).

some of the newer versions of python, such as the one in lucid, depreciate a hell lotta stuff. we are definately looking for trouble if we try to install the new version of python. but then again, why can't we make the two versions of python coexist peacefully?

[NightwishFan]

Part of the reasons is that currently Debian/Ubuntu treat programs classified "recommend" as dependencies. You can turn this off in Synaptic. Go to Settings -> Preferences, and uncheck "Consider recommended packages as dependencies." It becomes much easier to trim programs this way. You can re-enable it when you are done. It requires a bit more expert-ness though.

[Dustin2128]

Must..... resist... urge.. to... straighten.... pencil...