Remove "orphaned" filezilla ???

[Jim]

I used urpmi to check for updates on my main desktop (none),
and received a notice regarding filezilla.

The following package:
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9.x86_64 is now orphaned, if you
wish to remove it, you can use "urpme --auto-orphans"

Hazards of urpme --auto-orphans are legion, but I might
remove the package. When I looked to see its status
on the system:

rpm -qa |grep filezi
lib64filezilla10-0.25.0-2.mga8
lib64filezilla15-0.30.0-1.mga8
lib64filezilla36-0.42.2-1.mga9
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9
libfilezilla-i18n-0.47.0-1.mga9
lib64filezilla43-0.47.0-1.mga9
filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9

Say what? I do not use filezilla. Do I need any of these?
should I keep the last of them "just in case" ? Are there
other programs that use filezilla invisibly to me ?

Cheers!

jim b.

[Markus Robert Kessler]

Post by Jim
I used urpmi to check for updates on my main desktop (none),
and received a notice regarding filezilla.
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9.x86_64 is now orphaned, if you
wish to remove it, you can use "urpme --auto-orphans"
Hazards of urpme --auto-orphans are legion, but I might remove the
rpm -qa |grep filezi lib64filezilla10-0.25.0-2.mga8
lib64filezilla15-0.30.0-1.mga8 lib64filezilla36-0.42.2-1.mga9
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9 libfilezilla-i18n-0.47.0-1.mga9
lib64filezilla43-0.47.0-1.mga9 filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9
Say what? I do not use filezilla. Do I need any of these? should I
keep the last of them "just in case" ? Are there other programs that
use filezilla invisibly to me ?

I'd rather not use auto-orphans. Safer to remove all of the above with

rpm -e --nodeps rpm1 rpm2 rpm...

I don't know of any app 'invisibly using' filezilla. You can easily verify
this with

urpmq --whatrequires filezilla

So, you see, that not a single other app needs it.

And, if you change your mind one day and want to use it again, it's
trivial to re-install it.

Best regards,

Markus

[William Unruh]

Post by Jim
I used urpmi to check for updates on my main desktop (none),
and received a notice regarding filezilla.
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9.x86_64 is now orphaned, if you
wish to remove it, you can use "urpme --auto-orphans"
Hazards of urpme --auto-orphans are legion, but I might
remove the package. When I looked to see its status
rpm -qa |grep filezi
lib64filezilla10-0.25.0-2.mga8
lib64filezilla15-0.30.0-1.mga8
lib64filezilla36-0.42.2-1.mga9
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9
libfilezilla-i18n-0.47.0-1.mga9
lib64filezilla43-0.47.0-1.mga9
filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9
Say what? I do not use filezilla. Do I need any of these?
should I keep the last of them "just in case" ? Are there
other programs that use filezilla invisibly to me ?

NOT FOLLOW THAD ADVICE re auto-orphan. If you do you may well find yourself with a
dead system It is a rediculous bug in urpmi. Or ratehr it can be
helpful for developers. It is time bomb for ordinary users.
The problem seems to be that they keep changing the name of the
lib64filezilla package. Thus urpmi cannot know that the various numbers
are different versions of the same file, and the new one should replace
the old one, rather than keeping it. This has been a problem for at
least 10 years.

filezilla according to its blurb is
FileZilla is a fast and reliable FTP, FTPS and SFTP client with lots
of useful features and an intuitive graphical user interface.

If you do not use ftp, or use something else for ftp, then yes you could
remove the whole lot of them as far as I know.

Note if you get that autoorphaned message, You can try to install each
of the packages and it will remove it from the auto-orphaned list

eg as root, you could do
urpmi lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9.x86_64
and it would mark it as manually installed and not put it into an
orphaned list.

[David W. Hodgins]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:28:39 -0400, William Unruh <***@invalid.ca> wrote:
<snip>

Post by William Unruh
NOT FOLLOW THAD ADVICE re auto-orphan. If you do you may well find yourself with a
dead system It is a rediculous bug in urpmi. Or ratehr it can be
helpful for developers. It is time bomb for ordinary users.
The problem seems to be that they keep changing the name of the
lib64filezilla package. Thus urpmi cannot know that the various numbers
are different versions of the same file, and the new one should replace
the old one, rather than keeping it. This has been a problem for at
least 10 years.

<snip>

Just regarding the package naming for lib packages.

Library packages have a major and a minor number in the name. When an update
increases the minor number, meaning the api (application programming interface)
has not changed, the update replaces the prior package. When the major number
changes, it indicates the api has changed, so it's installed in addition to
the prior major version.

The reason that multiple major number versions of a package are allowed is
that libraries may be used by third party software that rpm does not know about.
Forcing them to be uninstalled would break that third party software.

While libfilezilla is unlikely to be used by any other software, the same can
not be said for all lib packages.

Regarding auto-orphans, it can be useful but it does need extreme caution.
If a package is listed as an orphan, but you know you don't want it to be
uninstalled, you can run "urpmi $packagename" for the already installed
package. Since it's already installed, all the urpmi command does is remove
the package from the orphans list.
https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Removing_packages#Warning

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[David W. Hodgins]

Post by Jim
I used urpmi to check for updates on my main desktop (none),
and received a notice regarding filezilla.
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9.x86_64 is now orphaned, if you
wish to remove it, you can use "urpme --auto-orphans"
Hazards of urpme --auto-orphans are legion, but I might
remove the package. When I looked to see its status
rpm -qa |grep filezi
lib64filezilla10-0.25.0-2.mga8
lib64filezilla15-0.30.0-1.mga8
lib64filezilla36-0.42.2-1.mga9
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9
libfilezilla-i18n-0.47.0-1.mga9
lib64filezilla43-0.47.0-1.mga9
filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9
Say what? I do not use filezilla. Do I need any of these?
should I keep the last of them "just in case" ? Are there
other programs that use filezilla invisibly to me ?

Use "urpme --test $pkgname" for any package to see what else will be removed.
Remove the --test option to actually remove them.

It'd also remove any other mga8 packages you still have installed.

Use "rpm -qa|grep -v -e mga9 -e gpg-pubkey" to get a list of all of the
packages that are not from mga9.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[Jim]

Post by David W. Hodgins

Post by Jim
I used urpmi to check for updates on my main desktop (none),
and received a notice regarding filezilla.
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9.x86_64 is now orphaned, if you
wish to remove it, you can use "urpme --auto-orphans"
Hazards of urpme --auto-orphans are legion, but I might
remove the package. When I looked to see its status
rpm -qa |grep filezi
lib64filezilla10-0.25.0-2.mga8
lib64filezilla15-0.30.0-1.mga8
lib64filezilla36-0.42.2-1.mga9
lib64filezilla41-0.45.0-1.mga9
libfilezilla-i18n-0.47.0-1.mga9
lib64filezilla43-0.47.0-1.mga9
filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9
Say what? I do not use filezilla. Do I need any of these?
should I keep the last of them "just in case" ? Are there
other programs that use filezilla invisibly to me ?

Use "urpme --test $pkgname" for any package to see what else will be removed.
Remove the --test option to actually remove them.
It'd also remove any other mga8 packages you still have installed.
Use "rpm -qa|grep -v -e mga9 -e gpg-pubkey" to get a list of all of the
packages that are not from mga9.

Dave,

Many thanks.

I followed your instructions, and concluded that ibfilezilla-i18n
had to be available for any libfilezilla package I wanted to keep, due
to foreign languages available I assume.

The filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9 seems to be the most recent package containing
filezilla, and it needs libfilezilla.so.43()(64bit)).

I will keep filezilla-3.67.0-1.mga9, lib64filezilla43-0.47.0-1.mga9.x86_64,
and libfilezilla-i18n-0.47.0-1.mga9.noarch. All else will be removed.

Cheers!

jim b.