2016-09-17 18:21 GMT+02:00 Keshav Kini :
>>
>> But anyway, things like these are possible for years with themes, which
>> are broken also for many years (if they ever worked), and nobody
>> complained about the broken support for years so I tend to think that
>> people don't care too much about the
Hi,
Keshav Kini wrote:
> One way to brighten the background color without using the bold
> attribute would be to wait for libncurses in Debian to switch over to
> the ncurses 6.0 ABI, which provides 256-color support. Then one could
> freely choose a slightly lighter blue color as the background
On 09/17/2016 09:08 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Dunno, maybe your experience is different or there are good examples,
> but from the Debian "insiders" side communicating with users, I think
> that marking the upgrades differently (specially bold/non-bold) as if
> some kind of upgrade
On 09/17/2016 08:20 AM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
>> Currently, the whole line is bold or normal depending if the package is
>> installed or not.
>
> Ok. The screenshot only showed packages already marked for upgrade. Of
> course, there can't be non-installed packa
2016-09-17 17:20 Axel Beckert:
More in general, I don't think that the distinction between upstream
upgrades and non-upstream upgrades is very interesting, and it can be
misleading in some cases:
- Upgrading to libssl_1.0.0-2 from -1 might be much more urgent /
recommendable / whatever than upg
Control: tag -1 - patch.
Hi,
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> >Will probably have to try it so see how it feels, but in general I
> >like the idea. So thanks for having already included a patch!
>
> Thanks for the suggestion and the patch.
>
> My view on this request is not so positive, t
Hi,
2016-09-16 13:47 Axel Beckert:
Hi Keshav,
Keshav Kini wrote:
When upgrading packages, aptitude users might like to know whether each
upgrade represents a newer upstream version of the package, or is merely
a Debian-specific change. This can be determined by comparing the
current and candi
On 09/16/2016 04:47 AM, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Interesting ideas (both, separating upstream from packaging changes as
> well as using the bold attribute for highlighting).
>
> Will probably have to try it so see how it feels, but in general I
> like the idea. So thanks for having already included a
Hi Keshav,
Keshav Kini wrote:
> When upgrading packages, aptitude users might like to know whether each
> upgrade represents a newer upstream version of the package, or is merely
> a Debian-specific change. This can be determined by comparing the
> current and candidate versions in the rightmost
On 09/15/2016 08:51 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> ===File
> /home/fs/src/aptitude/0001-Distinguish-Debian-specific-and-upstream-upgrades.patch===
Oops, looks like I accidentally attached the patch both as a MIME
attachment and inline. Sorry about that -- they're the same patch.
-Keshav
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.8.3-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
When upgrading packages, aptitude users might like to know whether each
upgrade represents a newer upstream version of the package, or is merely
a Debian-specific change. This can be determined by comparing the
cu
11 matches
Mail list logo
