On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 04:11:08PM -0700, Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Aptitude supports grouping packages in many useful ways. In
> particular, the "pattern" grouping rule allows dividing up packages by
> any arbitrary criteria. However, each set of packages will then
> continue through each of the subsequent grouping rules. I'd like the
> ability to create a group without sub-groups, while still applying the
> grouping rules to other groups.
>
> For example, if I specify this grouping rule:
>
> pattern(?essential => Essential, ?true ||),status,section
>
> , essential packages do go into a group labeled "Essential", but that
> group still divides packages up by status (always "Installed Packages"
> :) ) and then section. I'd like to put essential packages into a
> group and have that group not further divided.
>
> Even better if I could specify different grouping rules for different
> pattern-matched groups, but I'd settle for having some of the pattern
> groups terminal with no sub-grouping.
I've had it in the back of my mind to do this for a while. I just
checked this syntax into the head branch:
pattern(?essential => Essential {section(subdir)}, ?true ||), ...
so you can use any policy to group each sub-part of the pattern
expression. Of course, writing "{}" will give you a flat list of
packages (what you want here).
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
