So it's unclear to me why "ni-opcenum" got involved at all.
And why did "ni-datasocket" get removed? I don't want that to happen. We often install multiple packages on a given machine, and multiple might depend on that. If I wanted it removed, I would do so explicitly.
It didn't automatically remove the runtime engine, so is there something special about that package vs. ni-datasocket? Is there anything else we need to do to make sure nipkg doesn't do more than we asked it to?
It's also frustrating that it proactively *removed* ni-datasocket when we removed our custom internally-built package, but later when we tried to reinstall our package, it complained that "ni-datasocket" isn't installed. So, it appears to be smart enough to *remove* dependencies, but not smart enough to *install* them? That seems backwards.
From my experience, NIPM will uninstall a dependency package if they are not a dependency for any other packages that will remain installed. I agree we should be an option to not remove unspecified packages.
__________________________________ Bill Eisenhower Certified LabVIEW & TestStand Developer