bzip2 removal

[deadbolt67]

What are the implications of completely removing bzip2 from a standard RH workstation installation? File compression is obvious, but the package looks to be pretty pervasive and wondered if there would be a larger impact. We are getting a request from our I/A group to investigate the removal.

[atreyu]

Seems like an odd thing to be worried about...but I don't see any serious ramifications with removing bzip2. You wouldn't be able to bzip/bunzip anymore, but that is obvious. Gzip is more pervasive than bzip2, and that one you would probably NOT want to remove (for man pages alone).

[Rubberman]

I would not recommend removing bzip2 from the system. It is rapidly becoming the defacto file compressor for *nix systems. Yes, it is slower than gzip, but it compresses binary data better. In any case, I have to ask why you would want/need to?

[daark.child]

There are a lot of packages that rely on bzip2. Try

rpm -e --test bzip2

This will show you which packages rely on bzip2. These packages will be uninstalled along with bzip2.

[zackwasa]

This is what a CentOS server says:

[root@secure3 ~]# rpm -e --test bzip2
error: Failed dependencies:
        bzip2 is needed by (installed) man-1.6d-1.1.x86_64
        bzip2 is needed by (installed) rpm-build-4.4.2.3-22.el5.x86_64
        bzip2 is needed by (installed) sos-1.7-9.49.el5.noarch

If you are not going to use man or rpm-build then you can remove it

[jayd512]

Pay close attention to the results of the command suggested by daark.child.
You might remove something that is actually more critical than it appears.

[daark.child]

This is what a CentOS server says:

[root@secure3 ~]# rpm -e --test bzip2
error: Failed dependencies:
        bzip2 is needed by (installed) man-1.6d-1.1.x86_64
        bzip2 is needed by (installed) rpm-build-4.4.2.3-22.el5.x86_64
        bzip2 is needed by (installed) sos-1.7-9.49.el5.noarch

If you are not going to use man or rpm-build then you can remove it

What you'll find is that removing man and rpm-build will then force the deinstallation of other packages that rely on those two packages. To be honest I'd just leave bzip2 as it is because I suspect one could end up with a broken system if you tried to remove it along with any dependent packages.

[zackwasa]

If you don't want anyone to be able to use bzip2 you can just chmod it to 000 and leave it as it is

[Irithori]

.. which will break the system as well, because the mentioned depended tools can then also not execute bzip2.

I guess, the answer to that "I/A group" is: cannot easily be done, and why do you want that anyway?