On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I find it hard to believe that this thread can reasonably go from > "there's no need for output at all for any reason" to "there's a need > for so much output that we must be able to categorise it and filter it, > and to hell with backwards compatability".
No, the current situation has alot of output and this thread started because people want to see less - managing the output we already have seems to be a reasonable middle ground. > > We haven't had to use something like that in a long time. I don't think > > it will be as effective these days. > You'll be unable to install the .deb until your dpkg correctly supports > versioned provides (the preinst would fail), and apt won't have any idea > how to do the upgrade. This seems about exactly the same as previously. Er, I ment that using --asserts create confusing problems for the end user and preclude any possibility of a safe automatic upgrade. It is fortunate APT's ordering algorithms 'get lucky' and tend to install dpkg early on in the process - otherwise doing this would create a huge mess. As it is now APT aborts on versioned provides so the user has a clear indication they need to upgrade stuff. It could do it more elegently, but thats what we have <shrug>. [BTW, I haven't seen V-P's pass through policy, and I haven't seen a spec for them. APT still does not parse them..] > [0] One possibility might be having Apt try to just ignore all the stanzas > it can't understand and try to upgrade itself if it finds the Packages This is a solution I have been contemplating for a while, I'm not sure how well it will work overall. It does sound good.. Jason
