I wanted to install unity-scope-github but was faced with a surprising

The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
Use 'sudo apt autoremove' to remove it.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  ubuntu-desktop unity unity-scope-home unity-tweak-tool
The following NEW packages will be installed:

Now this is probably a bug in some old/not actively maintained package which will be reported as soon as I have understood the issue.

My real question: How can I see why apt reaches the conclusion that installing one additional scope requires the removal of two useful meta-packages and unity-scope-home.

Is this an indication of problems in the database?

Annotation: session-shortcuts is only "no longer required" when I try to install unity-scope-github, before this sudo apt autoremove yields no result at all.

I know unity-scope-github is quite old/not actively maintained and I can and will live very well without it


Install aptitude if you don't have it installed:

sudo apt install aptitude

Then run:

aptitude why-not unity-scope-github

It will give you an output like:

i   unity            Depends   unity-scope-home  
i A unity-scope-home Conflicts unity-scope-github

So we can see that unity depends on unity-scope-home, and unity-scope-home is in conflict with unity-scope-github.

The other packages of yours also are a part of these dependencies, e.g: if you run:

apt-cache depends unity-tweak-tool

You will find out that it depends on unity .

And about the session-shortcuts, If you run:

apt-cache rdepends session-shortcuts

You will get:

Reverse Depends:

That means this package was installed by unity, and now that unity is going to be removed, you no longer need it.

  • Great, another good use of aptitude! Additionally (comparing your output with mine) I found out about apt-mark (because I obvioulsly had issued something like apt install unity-scope-home some time in the past, so at first I did not get A in the unity-scope-home line and hence no unity line. – guntbert Apr 18 '17 at 17:34
  • +1 I did know about aptitude why, but not about aptitude why-not...makes a lot of sense. – Jos Apr 18 '17 at 17:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.