[pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox-ve] Add a purge proxmox-ve to the warning message

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On 1/9/19 9:46 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 09:30:38AM +0100, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:39:15PM +0100, Alwin Antreich wrote:
>>> When the package proxmox-ve is not purged the apt config is still there and
>>> hinders further use of apt, as it complains about the missing hook.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alwin Antreich <a.antreich at proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>>  debian/apthook/pve-apt-hook | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/debian/apthook/pve-apt-hook b/debian/apthook/pve-apt-hook
>>> index f925090..59e3a29 100755
>>> --- a/debian/apthook/pve-apt-hook
>>> +++ b/debian/apthook/pve-apt-hook
>>> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ while (my $line = <$fh>) {
>>>        $log->("\n");
>>>        $log->("If you really you want to permanently remove '${check_package}' from your system, run the following command\n");
>>>        $log->("\ttouch '${check_file}'\n");
>>> +      $log->("run apt-get/apt purge ${check_package} to remove the meta-package\n");
>>
>> Shouldn't we generally only use `apt` by now
> 
> fine either way for me.
> 
>>>        $log->("and repeat your apt-get/apt invocation.\n");
>>
>> and also remove `apt-get/` from this line instead?
> 
> well, we don't know whether the user called 'apt-get XX' or 'apt YY' at
> this point, hence the reference to both ;) or at least, that was the
> original intention behind this wording.

I think our users would figure it out if you just write apt (the tool and
package name), or if this really is a concern just use one of:

* "and repeat your command"
* "and repeat your package system command invoaction"

because one could use aptitude too, or not? Then the suggested would be
wrong too ;)

Either way, just use a single thing in both instances.