Hello everyone, when I check for orphaned packages with pacman -Qdt, I see packages that were previously set to be installed as explicit. Then I run pacman -D --asexplicit ..., check again with pacman -Qdt, and everything is fine—no orphaned packages. After a future pacman -Syu, reboot, pacman -Qdt I see the same packages again. This affects, for example: libreoffice-still-de, bluez-utils, alsa-tools, inkscape, linux-lts, ncdu, gnuradio-companion, xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin, firefox-i18n-de, discord, chromium. Any hints on what I might be missing? Has anyone had similar experiences? Best regards hias
Greetings, I do not know from where i got it (could have been the wiki or forums or reddit, but most likely is wiki), but i have always done `pacman -Qttdq`. I do no think it will make a huge difference though. You can mark packages to be installed explicitly by `pacman -D --asexplicit`. You can also uninstall it and re install with pacman -S, and it should work, though for some packages you can not remove them (either have too many dependants or really required for system or pacman (like bash)). If you truly want to experiment with removing them, try `pacman -Rdd` but please do not use it if you can, especially with any dependencies of pacman, as that is a very fast way to break pacman.
On Sun, 2026-03-08 at 15:07 +0000, sga013@posteo.com wrote:
If you truly want to experiment with removing them, try `pacman -Rdd` but please do not use it if you can, especially with any dependencies of pacman, as that is a very fast way to break pacman.
Hi, the OP could start by building and installing pacman-static. To be on the safe side, test whether pacman-static can download and install packages from the repositories without any problems. It should work, but there was a minor issue some time ago, so please test it first. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pacman-static If pacman-static is provided in a functional state, there is no need to worry about breaking pacman. Regards, Ralf
Greetings, thank you, I did not know of 'pacman-static'. I usually try not to use aur, unless I have to, but thank you. I will try to keep it installed just in case I bork something in future.
Greetings,
I do not know from where i got it (could have been the wiki or forums or reddit, but most likely is wiki), but i have always done `pacman -Qttdq`. I do no think it will make a huge difference though.
You can mark packages to be installed explicitly by `pacman -D --asexplicit`. You can also uninstall it and re install with pacman -S, and it should work, though for some packages you can not remove them (either have too many dependants or really required for system or pacman (like bash)). If you truly want to experiment with removing them, try `pacman -Rdd` but please do not use it if you can, especially with any dependencies of pacman, as that is a very fast way to break pacman.
tnx, The real question is why the installation reason changes from “Explicitly installed” to “Installed as a dependency of another package.” on it's own Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I sometimes use -Syu together with --asdeps ...
participants (3)
-
arch.hias＠eilert.tech
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
sga013＠posteo.com