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

[Fabian Grünbichler]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 10:02:15AM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> 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"

yes, all of those options are okay for me too :)

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

I am not sure if aptitude respects these options at all. Its man page
does refer to apt.conf(5), and it is using libapt-pkg under the hood, so
maybe it does?

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

+1 for plain 'apt'.