[arch-general] definition of "orphan"

[2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE at potatochowder.com]

On 2021-03-11 at 09:11:34 +0100,
Reto via arch-general <arch-general at lists.archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 11 March 2021 08:54:16 CET, Matthias Bodenbinder <matthias at bodenbinder.de> wrote:
> 
> >Your example is not valid. Because the two different definitions of an
> >orphan are within the same context: arch package management. Depending
> >on which repo you are getting the package from an orphan is this or
> >that. That is ambigious.
> 
> Except it really isn't the same context...
> 
> The AUR is a repository for package recipes, the build files only.
> 
> If you look at the definition you gave from pacman
> 
> orphans - packages that were installed as dependencies but are no longer required by any installed package.
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense for a build recipe, it simply can't refer to the same thing.
> You don't install pkgbuild instructions and a repo of those doesn't have things installed.

Suppose I install packages big-application and useful-library from AUR,
and big-application depends on useful-library.  Then I uninstall
big-application, and useful-library's maintainer abandons it.

Now useful-library on my system is a orphan under both definitions, so
if all I say is that useful-library is an orphan, then the context to
which I am referring is, in fact, ambiguous.  Often, though, the context
is given by, well, the context of my statement.

> So no, package building and package installation aren't the same context, even if related.