-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/29/08 08:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: >>> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages >>> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced) >>> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them >>> around, usually never noticing the fact that no security (or other) >>> support is available anymore. >>> >>> Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we >>> might need to fix this - we just need to decide how. The probably >>> easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages that are not >>> available in any version at one of the locations specified in >>> sources.list. This trivial solution sucks, because locally created >>> packages [1] also fall in this category. So, has anyone a good idea >>> solving this problem, without needing to keepr masses of status/diff/bla >>> files around? >> I usually run 'apt-show-versions | grep -v uptodate' to find them. The >> remaining list is short enough to be analyzed manually. > > I don't think normal users do that - and users shouldn't expect to > install Priority: optional packages to get a list of things that are not > supported anymore by their distribution.
Why not? IOW, why shouldn't "normal users" be expected to expend a little effort to maintain their system? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA "I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.", Mr. Spock -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIPq0ZS9HxQb37XmcRAuN5AKCAzmedJn+wnvFEsUuBwHqbKq71+gCgvZCU lvZEWU+UH7B/R0hwsVDGjM8= =tWcw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
