Re: Bugs/server-request doesn't mention usertags
[Apologies for the delay in replying, I'm catching up on mail after having been out-of-action for a few weeks] On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 17:53 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > Hi, > > I just noticed that Bugs/server-request doesn't mention usertags at all. > Since mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the only way to add usertags after the bug > was filled it should really mention how to add them. Well, [EMAIL PROTECTED] works too... :-) Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a problem with http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nut ?
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 12:46:24PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > BinNMUs don't have a source upload and thus are not really accompanied > by a changelog. I'm not sure if that would be doable with some redirect > magic on packages.debian.org or should be catched by aptitude directly > already. Propably both ... For the record, it is an issue already tracked by #422074. -- Simon Paillard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Is there a problem with http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nut ?
Hi! Am Dienstag, den 25.12.2007, 10:33 -0800 schrieb e2xbegqsdyt21hfc: > Is there a problem with > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nut: > > $ apt-show-versions -a -b nut > nut 2.2.0-2 install ok installed > nut 2.2.0-2+b1 testing > nut 2.2.0-2+b1 unstable > nut/testing > > $ aptitude changelog nut > Ign ChangeLog of nut > E: Couldn't fetch URL > http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nut/nut_2.2.0-2+b1/changelog > E: Couldn't find a changelog for nut BinNMUs don't have a source upload and thus are not really accompanied by a changelog. I'm not sure if that would be doable with some redirect magic on packages.debian.org or should be catched by aptitude directly already. Propably both ... http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/n/nut/nut_2.2.0-2/changelog is what you were looking for. So long, Rhonda signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#183585: Just Read What Our Satisfied Customers Say!
100% Money Back Guarantee. http://neptiunuei.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
downloading Debian 3.1 r2 dvd for i386 and amd64
Help: I have a customer who is running Debian 3.1 r2 on both intel and amd platforms. I need to get a DVD download of that release He is also running with the 2.6.19.7 kernel Could you point me to a location I can download this version of Debian Thanks
Re: Re: Alexander von Sallwitz/HH/NDR ist außer Haus.
Please remove this message from the internet. Alexander Ockel von Sallwitz Buddenhof 5 21635 Jork Tel. +49 4142 3574 Fax +49 4142 889192 Mobiltel. +49 160 7836424 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alexander von Sallwitz NDR Fernsehen / Kultur Dokumentation & Reportage Hugh-Greene-Weg 1 22529 Hamburg Tel. +49 40 4156 4877 Fax +49 40 4156 7436 mobil+49 160 7836424 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Severity: minor
>
> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 contains
>
> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the aptitude
> (or
> apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to one of Debian's
> many FTP or HTTP mirrors.
>
> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting that one
> can use one or the other. This should probably read "by pointing the Advanced
> Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to [...]".
>
>
>
You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to use.
Regards.
- --
Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. PGP: 0xCACAB118
http://ghostbar.ath.cx/{about,acerca} - http://debian.org.ve
`ghostbar' @ irc.debian.org/#debian-ve,#debian-devel-es
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHdAcmOKCtW8rKsRgRAogaAKDSCUFOHstmg6JMnpVJpEvc6iJlAwCfZBXw
CTA9edQqrcIvtiVwBBguQmk=
=bSpo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez écrit : > Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > Package: www.debian.org > > Severity: minor > > > > As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 contains > > > > Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the > > aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to > > one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. > > > > This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting that > > one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by pointing the > > Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to > > [...]". > > You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to use. > Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem is precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not use APT, which is already a common misconception.
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Package: www.debian.org Severity: minor As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 contains Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting that one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to [...]". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#438787: marked as done (/devel/debian-installer/ links to outdated "weekly" and "daily" images)
Your message dated Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:33:06 -0500 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Out of date has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: www.debian.org Severity: normal http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ links to http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ on "current weekly snapshot of Debian testing", but these images aren't current currently, dating from May. There are current netinst and businesscard images for testing which are linked from the same page - the problem is that the outdated images appear first. Similarly, "daily" multi-arch CD images are not current. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- The current weekly images are now current. The multi-arch links are now broken. --- End Message ---
Bug#457994: broken links on /devel/debian-installer/ to multi-arch images
Package: www.debian.org Severity: normal The 2 links to multi-arch CD images on http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ are broken, yielding Forbidden You don't have permission to access /cdimage/daily-builds/daily/arch-latest/multi-arch/iso-cd/ on this server. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: downloading Debian 3.1 r2 dvd for i386 and amd64
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 10:10 -0600, Mike Kryskow wrote: > Help: > > > > I have a customer who is running Debian 3.1 r2 on both intel and > amd platforms. I need to get a DVD download of that release As usually, you probably want to use netinst or jigdo images.. http://www.debian.org/releases/sarge/debian-installer/ > He is also running with the 2.6.19.7 kernel AFAIK, Dbian has never shipped such kernel in stable (sarge=2.6.18 ; etch=2.6.19) check http://packages.debian.org >Could you point me to a location I can download this version of > Debian Hope this helps. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez écrit : > >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>> Package: www.debian.org > >>> Severity: minor > >>> > >>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 > >>> contains > >>> > >>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the > >>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to > >>> one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. > >>> > >>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting > >>> that one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by > >>> pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) > >>> manual page) to [...]". > >> > >> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to use. > > > > Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem is > > precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not use APT, > > which is already a common misconception. > > No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever > package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem. The announcement says this: "You can use A or B." B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only choice is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end to use. It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager (such as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're pointing APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package manager to a source indirectly. The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or Linux to replace Windows.
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Philippe Cloutier wrote: > Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez écrit : >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: >>> Package: www.debian.org >>> Severity: minor >>> >>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 contains >>> >>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the >>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to >>> one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. >>> >>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting that >>> one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by pointing the >>> Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to >>> [...]". >> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to use. >> > Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem is > precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not use APT, > which is already a common misconception. No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Philippe Cloutier wrote: > Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: >>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez > écrit : >>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: >>>>> Package: www.debian.org >>>>> Severity: minor >>>>> >>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 >>>>> contains >>>>> >>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the >>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) to >>>>> one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. >>>>> >>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting >>>>> that one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by >>>>> pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) >>>>> manual page) to [...]". >>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to use. >>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem is >>> precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not use APT, >>> which is already a common misconception. >> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever >> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). > I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem. > The announcement says this: > "You can use A or B." > B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only choice is > to > use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end to use. > > It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager (such as > aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're pointing APT to a > source, and you're only pointing your package manager to a source indirectly. > > The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or Linux to > replace Windows. No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library. Sorry, but you're wrong. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#176407: See this
Great Gift ideas online Top Quality for Men, Women and Kids http://syoldyear.com Yes. The obvious Yes. You'd want that said, (if you But snow has gathered there, has piled up, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#207094: Nice gift ideas
Great Gift ideas online Top Quality for Men, Women and Kids http://synewperiod.net The road, but not far enough ahead Of observation lying on the ground That patch of white at the very end of the road -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Le December 27, 2007 03:47:40 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez > > > > écrit : > >>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>>>> Package: www.debian.org > >>>>> Severity: minor > >>>>> > >>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 > >>>>> contains > >>>>> > >>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the > >>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) > >>>>> to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. > >>>>> > >>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting > >>>>> that one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by > >>>>> pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) > >>>>> manual page) to [...]". > >>>> > >>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to > >>>> use. > >>> > >>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem is > >>> precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not use > >>> APT, which is already a common misconception. > >> > >> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever > >> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). > > > > I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem. > > The announcement says this: > > "You can use A or B." > > B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only choice > > is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end to use. > > > > It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager (such > > as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're pointing > > APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package manager to a > > source indirectly. > > > > The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or > > Linux to replace Windows. > > No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library. Quoting English Wikipedia: > APT is a C++ library of functions (known as libapt) which are used by > front-end programs for dealing with packages [...] As you can see, APT can be considered as libapt. apt can also be considered as the apt package, but it still contains libapt, so apt either is or contains libapt. Therefore, suggesting that one can use aptitude without using apt is misleading.
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Philippe Cloutier wrote: > Le December 27, 2007 03:47:40 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: >>> Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : >>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: >>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez >>> écrit : >>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: >>>>>>> Package: www.debian.org >>>>>>> Severity: minor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 >>>>>>> contains >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the >>>>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual page) >>>>>>> to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, suggesting >>>>>>> that one can use one or the other. This should probably read "by >>>>>>> pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the sources.list(5) >>>>>>> manual page) to [...]". >>>>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to >>>>>> use. >>>>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem is >>>>> precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not use >>>>> APT, which is already a common misconception. >>>> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever >>>> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). >>> I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem. >>> The announcement says this: >>> "You can use A or B." >>> B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only choice >>> is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end to use. >>> >>> It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager (such >>> as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're pointing >>> APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package manager to a >>> source indirectly. >>> >>> The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or >>> Linux to replace Windows. >> No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library. > > Quoting English Wikipedia: >> APT is a C++ library of functions (known as libapt) which are used by >> front-end programs for dealing with packages [...] > > As you can see, APT can be considered as libapt. apt can also be considered > as > the apt package, but it still contains libapt, so apt either is or contains > libapt. Therefore, suggesting that one can use aptitude without using apt is > misleading. Last time: For *end users* apt is a package manager. We recommend to use aptitude or apt as package manager to upgrade... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Le December 27, 2007 04:39:34 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > Le December 27, 2007 03:47:40 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>> Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > >>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez > >>> > >>> écrit : > >>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>>>>>> Package: www.debian.org > >>>>>>> Severity: minor > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 > >>>>>>> contains > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the > >>>>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual > >>>>>>> page) to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, > >>>>>>> suggesting that one can use one or the other. This should probably > >>>>>>> read "by pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the > >>>>>>> sources.list(5) manual page) to [...]". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to > >>>>>> use. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem > >>>>> is precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not > >>>>> use APT, which is already a common misconception. > >>>> > >>>> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever > >>>> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). > >>> > >>> I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem. > >>> The announcement says this: > >>> "You can use A or B." > >>> B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only > >>> choice is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end > >>> to use. > >>> > >>> It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager > >>> (such as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're > >>> pointing APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package manager > >>> to a source indirectly. > >>> > >>> The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or > >>> Linux to replace Windows. > >> > >> No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library. > > > > Quoting English Wikipedia: > >> APT is a C++ library of functions (known as libapt) which are used by > >> front-end programs for dealing with packages [...] > > > > As you can see, APT can be considered as libapt. apt can also be > > considered as the apt package, but it still contains libapt, so apt > > either is or contains libapt. Therefore, suggesting that one can use > > aptitude without using apt is misleading. > > Last time: For *end users* apt is a package manager. You mean a libapt front-end? If so, which one is it?
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Le December 27, 2007 04:39:34 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
>> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:47:40 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
>>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit :
>>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
>>>>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Package: www.debian.org
>>>>>>>>> Severity: minor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227
>>>>>>>>> contains
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the
>>>>>>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual
>>>>>>>>> page) to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are,
>>>>>>>>> suggesting that one can use one or the other. This should probably
>>>>>>>>> read "by pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see the
>>>>>>>>> sources.list(5) manual page) to [...]".
>>>>>>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to
>>>>>>>> use.
>>>>>>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem
>>>>>>> is precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not
>>>>>>> use APT, which is already a common misconception.
>>>>>> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever
>>>>>> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt).
>>>>> I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem.
>>>>> The announcement says this:
>>>>> "You can use A or B."
>>>>> B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only
>>>>> choice is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT front-end
>>>>> to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager
>>>>> (such as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're
>>>>> pointing APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package manager
>>>>> to a source indirectly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or
>>>>> Linux to replace Windows.
>>>> No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library.
>>> Quoting English Wikipedia:
>>>> APT is a C++ library of functions (known as libapt) which are used by
>>>> front-end programs for dealing with packages [...]
>>> As you can see, APT can be considered as libapt. apt can also be
>>> considered as the apt package, but it still contains libapt, so apt
>>> either is or contains libapt. Therefore, suggesting that one can use
>>> aptitude without using apt is misleading.
>> Last time: For *end users* apt is a package manager.
> You mean a libapt front-end? If so, which one is it?
>
>
>
Ok, check the description of the apt package:
http://packages.debian.org/sid/apt
"Advanced front-end for dpkg"!! And does aptitude depends on the apt
package? No! Depends on libapt! Which is not apt.
Regards.
- --
Jose Luis Rivas. San Cristóbal, Venezuela. PGP: 0xCACAB118
http://ghostbar.ath.cx/{about,acerca} - http://debian.org.ve
`ghostbar' @ irc.debian.org/#debian-ve,#debian-devel-es
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHdDb/OKCtW8rKsRgRAt1YAJ9fVQs7ezKdgtzvueEbJnf6wgB1LQCcDipF
xnsp+hLd8mQFKAlioQOl0uo=
=q6e6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
December Voting are Started Until 31/12/2007
The vote is started today and ends on 31 of December.
Visit the competition page and saw the pictures at:
http://www.photoclub.uni.cc/kodakchallenge/thumbnails.php?album=46 {SNOW}
http://www.photoclub.uni.cc/kodakchallenge/thumbnails.php?album=44 {Boats}
There are (Rate this file) at the end of each Photo Page.
See this example to know how to make your vote:
http://kodakchallenge.110mb.com/forum/index.php?topic=1306.0
You can Vote all the entry by clicking on the (Rate) you have six Rate (
Rubbish, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent, Great ) which you can choice any rate you
like for every entry there that is just To determine quality of the images ,
but just one rate for one photo.
the only rate will be collect for the resolutes are "Great".
The points of the Rates will be collect at the end of Voting time and the
winner who is collect a High number of points from "Great".
Enjoyed and Good luck for every one.
Regards,
The www.PhotoClub.uni.cc Team.
Updating p.d.o
Hello All! How is the packages.d.o get updated from git? There is new Russian translation in git since Dec 16 but it isn't updated yet. -- Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457995: new update/revision announcement pages confusing about aptitude/apt
Le December 27, 2007 06:36:31 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous avez écrit : > Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > Le December 27, 2007 04:39:34 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > >> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>> Le December 27, 2007 03:47:40 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > >>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:26:11 pm Luk Claes, vous avez écrit : > >>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>>>>>> Le December 27, 2007 03:12:22 pm Jose Luis Rivas Contreras, vous > >>>>>>> avez > >>>>> > >>>>> écrit : > >>>>>>>> Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Package: www.debian.org > >>>>>>>>> Severity: minor > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> As its predecessor, http://www.us.debian.org/News/2007/20071227 > >>>>>>>>> contains > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Upgrading to this revision online is usually done by pointing the > >>>>>>>>> aptitude (or apt) package tool (see the sources.list(5) manual > >>>>>>>>> page) to one of Debian's many FTP or HTTP mirrors. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This can confuse readers about what apt and aptitude are, > >>>>>>>>> suggesting that one can use one or the other. This should > >>>>>>>>> probably read "by pointing the Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) (see > >>>>>>>>> the sources.list(5) manual page) to [...]". > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You can use one or the other, depending on which one you prefer to > >>>>>>>> use. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually, you have to use APT, since aptitude uses APT. The problem > >>>>>>> is precisely that the announcement suggests that aptitude does not > >>>>>>> use APT, which is already a common misconception. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, aptitude uses libapt... For an enduser he can choose whatever > >>>>>> package manager to use, though we recommend aptitude (or apt). > >>>>> > >>>>> I guess I have not been clear enough about the problem. > >>>>> The announcement says this: > >>>>> "You can use A or B." > >>>>> B being a library used by A, users have to use B anyway, the only > >>>>> choice is to use A or not. Actually, the choice is which APT > >>>>> front-end to use. > >>>>> > >>>>> It could also be changed to "pointing your favorite package manager > >>>>> (such as aptitude and Synaptic) to [...]" though in reality, you're > >>>>> pointing APT to a source, and you're only pointing your package > >>>>> manager to a source indirectly. > >>>>> > >>>>> The current sentence is a bit like saying that you can use Debian or > >>>>> Linux to replace Windows. > >>>> > >>>> No, it's not, apt is a package manager, it's libapt that is a library. > >>> > >>> Quoting English Wikipedia: > >>>> APT is a C++ library of functions (known as libapt) which are used by > >>>> front-end programs for dealing with packages [...] > >>> > >>> As you can see, APT can be considered as libapt. apt can also be > >>> considered as the apt package, but it still contains libapt, so apt > >>> either is or contains libapt. Therefore, suggesting that one can use > >>> aptitude without using apt is misleading. > >> > >> Last time: For *end users* apt is a package manager. > > > > You mean a libapt front-end? If so, which one is it? > > Ok, check the description of the apt package: > http://packages.debian.org/sid/apt > > "Advanced front-end for dpkg"!! Yes, it's not clear. I opened #458029 about that. > And does aptitude depends on the apt > package? No! Depends on libapt! Which is not apt. It doesn't directly depend on apt, but it does effectively depend on it.
