Phonon-qt6-mpv removed from the repos

Important notifications
22

Yes I saw this .. but my okular is also wondering. :thinking:

23

iā€™ve been having a hard time to update my system, any suggestions ?

ā”¬ā”€[ramon@ramon-m61pmes2p:~]ā”€[16:49:12]
ā•°ā”€>$ LANG=C yay                                                     0 < 16:49:12
:: Synchronizing package databases...
 endeavouros is up to date
 core is up to date
 extra is up to date
 multilib is up to date
:: Starting full system upgrade...
resolving dependencies...
looking for conflicting packages...
:: libvlc-3.0.21-26 and libvlc-luajit-3.0.21-21 are in conflict. Remove libvlc-luajit? [y/N] y
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: removing libvlc-luajit breaks dependency 'libvlc-luajit' required by vlc-luajit
 -> erro ao recarregar base de dados - exit status 1
ā”¬ā”€[ramon@ramon-m61pmes2p:~]ā”€[16:49:25]
ā•°ā”€>$
24

You need to manage your third party, unsupported, package(s).

If you even need them at all .. they probably need to be rebuilt or similar.

The easiest way for you is probably just to remove the foreign ones and re-build/re-install again if needed.

sudo pacman -R vlc-luajit libvlc-luajit
sudo pacman -Syu
1 Like
25 
sudo pacman -Rdd libvlc-luajit vlc-luajit
sudo pacman -Syu
2 Likes
26

Thanks a lot, that worked!

1 Like
27

Is it safe to uninstall mpv afterwards?
Iā€™ve never (intentionally) used the player anyway. Haruna started somewhere, but after checking it out, I decided to stick with VLC.

Iā€™ve seen that if I want to remove mpv, I also have to remove mpvqt and haruna, because otherwise dependencies will be broken.

So I would run the following command:
sudo pacman -R mpv mpvqt haruna

28

Yes, as long as you donā€™t use it.

29

Yes.
And if you didnt intentionally install it originally (not explicitly installed) and you included s with the removal it would be gotten as well (sudo pacman -Rs phonon-qt6-mpv).

If you already removed it then yes you can finger the leftover packages.

But maybe include the same procedure;

sudo pacman -Rns mpv mpvqt haruna

(n is also included because there is no reason to retain something like pacsaves)

30

I recommend avoiding the use -Rs as much as possible. Unfortunately, it can remove the optional dependency of other packages so if you care about that, it is best to not use it.

31

Only if they were not explicitly installed.
As optional dependencies are not automatically installed by default ..
I dont see the issue.

(They are optional in the first place and if they were desired then they should have been explicitly installed .. indeed it is unlikely to have received them any other way excepting other previous partial removals and lack of attention to orphans. If you are ā€˜relyingā€™ on an orphan then that is a nonstandard and nondesirable system state. )

1 Like
32

Which is very commonly the case.

Something can be an optional dependency of a package and a hard dependency of something else.

Yuck. No. If you explicitly install an optional dependency then it will not be removed when the last package that depended on it is removed.

33

But you are outlining a scenario in which they are somehow needed by another package?
I dont think I understand how this would work out.

Right ok .. so in this hypothetical we have someone installs PackageA which relies on PackageB.. Now PackageC is installed at some point and has an optional dependency on PackageB.
You are avoiding -Rs because of the happenstance that you ā€˜likeā€™ having the optional deps for PackageC even though they have not been marked that way by ALPM? So we are just going by vibes as the install reasons then?

Its fine for you to do this if you prefer.

But I think the aversion to -Rs appears to be a product of mismanagement in the first place.

34

I see this scenario regularly, it is super common when you are careful to always install optional deps as dependencies instead of explicitly.

They are marked as deps as is proper in my opinion. They are packages I donā€™t need once the original package has been removed.

There is no real downside in avoiding -Rs though. There are better pacman flags to use.

To be clear, I am not saying you shouldnā€™t use -Rs, I am explaining why I donā€™t recommend it. Everyone should feel free to manage their system how they like, I am just sharing my opinion on it.

1 Like
35

Thanks to both of you for the quick replies!

I didnā€™t explicitly install haruna and mpv; they were probably included in the ISO. Maybe I could have unchecked them, but I didnā€™t pay attention. Itā€™s okay, though; Iā€™ve gotten to know a new player! :slight_smile:

But Iā€™ve also had the experience with -Rs that I accidentally removed something, so Iā€™m cautious with this command. (I think I canā€™t remember exactly what or how that wasā€¦)

1 Like
36

But the scenario is that you are removing it along with what actually requires it.
This is expected/intended behavior?
Everything is printed before continuing too.
So if you have a package that you ā€¦ pretty much want to treat as explicitly installed because you want it kept even though its not a dependency .. but we dont want it to be explicitly installed we want it to be an optional dep .. there are flags for that too --asdeps.
If theres an optional dependency you know you need then thats probably not too difficult in the, what I consider, quite rare scenario of ā€˜needingā€™ a package for some third package it was not installed for but is going to be removed as a hard dep of something else.

I still think the whole scenario is an odd way to manage things.
Like relying on the fact that you installed firefox at some point to be the reason you have networkmanager.

In the situations we have painted the only compromise I can come up with is using regular R and then selectively removing orphans. Kuz this definitely means you will have orphans. u doesnt work for this and flags you might hope to filter according to the odd reqs above like t are not functional on R. Of course you cant be talking about c as thats actually a dangerous removal flag.

Iā€™ll ditto my respective version of that from this side of the court. :slight_smile:

1 Like
37

But it is a dependency. Optional dependencies are, by definition, dependencies.

Right, that is what I do when I manually install an optional dependency of a package.

I have seen this on my personal machine many times. Way more than 100.

It is probably rare for you because you install those packages explicitly. Or, maybe, you just donā€™t install and remove packages as frequently as I do.

38

IF they would not otherwise by a dependency of something and I want it no matter what then I install it explicitly .. as should do.

My ā€˜explicitly installedā€™ list is actually quite small at around 300 packages, which are mostly made up of Plasma things and whats in base.

I dunno. Iā€™m writing from a system that was converted to cachy from manjaro and has certainly seen its fair share of removals. And I use Rns as the default. I think things are rather as they should be.

But hey .. maybe its slightly safer for the randos to not use any kind of recursion and let them deal with orphans and such later. Maybe. I might still think any possible issues belie the quality of systems or standards as proposed but maybe thats just me. I can say that if I have somehow hurt myself with my approach to management .. its either too minor or I am too blind to notice.

39

Yeah. My comment was not really for people like you or I. We have both been using Arch-based distros forā€¦a long time.

I actually recently realized how many years it had been since I first joined the Manjaro forum. It wasā€¦disturbing. :sweat_smile:

1 Like
40

If Phonon is the Multimedia framework for QT6, then what replaces it?

41

Just no hard dep - if you dont need to have video/audio previews/play in dolphin or gwenview then you dont need them.