On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:43:37PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Eventually I found aptitude's "Dselect" theme, which helped some.
>
> I guess aptitude could be made the recommended default package manager,
> but I would hope that:
> 1. Something more closely approximating the Dselect theme i
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 10:59:15PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> (e) I've heard about a "debtags" database system that's trying to
> find a general solution to the problem of categorizing packages.
> I took a look at their library at one point and wasn't able to
> figure out h
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> (e) I've heard about a "debtags" database system that's trying to
> find a general solution to the problem of categorizing packages.
> I took a look at their library at one point and wasn't able to
> figure out how to use it, but if this project is still going
>
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> (h) ummm, I can't think of anything else right now.
Listing the release (stable/testing/unstable or woody/sarge/sid) it comes
from next to the versions of a package would be nice.
Just my .02 EUR.
--
Kurt Bernhard Pruenner Telefon: 0732/2468-7135
Techniker Gr
On 2003-10-03, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. It's a lot simpler, from the point of view of maintainability,
> to have a single user's manual for both offline and online perusal.
>
> One nice way to make this less of an issue would be to rewrite the
> documentation in a str
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:07:00PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > The way this garbage collection is implemented is one of the main
> > dislikes I have about aptitude. Aptitude contains a database with
> > packages that have been installed through aptitude; as such, it contains
> > no information
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:40:06 +0200, MichaÅ Politowski wrote:
[locating broken packages]
> Usually I just press l~b
Cool, thanks. I didn't know that trick. (The German translation of the "l"
feature is misleading, no it's actually totally wrong... It never occurred
to me that this keybinding could
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:29:19PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> I think this has to do with the default display format not always being
> upgraded. It should be "%c%a%M %p #%v%V".
Thanks, indeed. It helped to delete ~root/.aptitude. Didnt know it stores
something, there.
Greetings
Bernd
--
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 10:59:09AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:20:33PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> > A minor issue that plagues me as a Sid user is the "broken packages"
> > display. When I install foo that breaks package bar by conflicts of
> > dependencies of depende
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:20:33PM +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> A minor issue that plagues me as a Sid user is the "broken packages"
> display. When I install foo that breaks package bar by conflicts of
> dependencies of dependencies (you get the idea), aptitude tells me that
> there are broken
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:48:13PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:52:02PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > This is exactly what aptitude does (assuming "unwanted" means "will
> > be removed when nothing depends on it")
>
> The strange t
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:52:02PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> This is exactly what aptitude does (assuming "unwanted" means "will
> be removed when nothing depends on it")
The strange thing for me is, that aptitude sometimes displays the "A" letter
and in some versions it does not. Have you
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:20:33 +0200, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
[...]
> A minor issue that plagues me as a Sid user is the "broken packages"
> display. When I install foo that breaks package bar by conflicts of
> dependencies of dependencies (you get the idea), aptitude tells me that
> there are broken
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 08:26:28PM +0200, Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> An alternative but safer way would be to record which packages were
> installed with aptitude only to fulfill a dependency and mark them as
> unwanted.
This is exactly what aptitude does (assuming
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:20:11 +0200, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 02-Oct-03, 21:59 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It will never be off by default while I am a maintainer of the package,
>> unless someone gets me to change my mind (which I don't think is
>> likely; I already thou
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 05:20:10 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> As I indicated in a recent message, I don't currently have time to
> get aptitude working the way I'd like. Please consider this a public
> call for a codeveloper -- you can "interview" by submitting working
> patches for one of the is
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Op vr 03-10-2003, om 04:59 schreef Daniel Burrows:
[...]
>> In most cases, the garbage collection should operate without you
>> needing to know about it. (the increasing prevalence of meta-packages
>> is making this a bit tricky -- some explicit mark
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:53:33AM -0500, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On 02-Oct-03, 21:59 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The Users Manual starts with a section on the non-interactive interface.
> > > Huh?
> >
> > I suppose the command-line in
On 03-Oct-03, 10:49 (CDT), Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> > You might consider including a default filter so that the only
> > candidates for automatic removal begin with 'lib' and don't end with
> > '-dev'.
>
> This seems rather silly. The whole point of t
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 06:34:29PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Op vr 03-10-2003, om 04:59 schreef Daniel Burrows:
> > In most cases, the garbage collection should operate without you
> > needing to know about it. (the increasing prevalence of meta-packages
> >
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The way this garbage collection is implemented is one of the main
> dislikes I have about aptitude. Aptitude contains a database with
> packages that have been installed through aptitude; as such, it contains
> no information on packages that were installed through a diffe
Op vr 03-10-2003, om 04:59 schreef Daniel Burrows:
> > Figuring out how to tell aptitude not to automatically delete "unused"
> > packages
> > required reading the User Manual while knowing that this was an issue.
> >
> > This is on by default, and the information about marking a package
> > "man
Steve Greenland wrote:
> You might consider including a default filter so that the only
> candidates for automatic removal begin with 'lib' and don't end with
> '-dev'.
This seems rather silly. The whole point of this feature is to
distinguish those packages that you manually requested from those
On 02-Oct-03, 21:59 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Users Manual starts with a section on the non-interactive interface.
> > Huh?
>
> I suppose the command-line interface could be documented later, but
> it's usually documented earlier. Or are you objecting to the odd
As I indicated in a recent message, I don't currently have time to
get aptitude working the way I'd like. Please consider this a public
call for a codeveloper -- you can "interview" by submitting working
patches for one of the issues below, particularly the ones I've outlined
a fix for. (aptitu
Well, aptitude is certainly better than it used to be.
At least now it's keystroke-compatible with dselect. I still find it
less useful though. :-P
--
Although aptitude uses only one fewer line of screen space for the
list of packages, somehow it manages to have less information. The
absence o
26 matches
Mail list logo
