On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:57:22AM +0900, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
> > the load time or its overall performance? The time required to load
> > in all th
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
> the load time or its overall performance? The time required to load
> in all the state files is a bit long, but once they're loaded the
> program seems to run reasonably quickly to
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:41:25AM +0900, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [0] alert readers will note that the caveat "if the user waits for a
> > sufficient amount of time" has to be added here; however, this is typically
> > mu
Scripsit Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Though I love the aptitude interface and functionality, I've noticed
> that on my home machine (not so fast, but not too bad with average
> software), normal aptitude operation has been getting more and more
> slothlike in recent times, to the point where
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [0] alert readers will note that the caveat "if the user waits for a
> sufficient amount of time" has to be added here; however, this is typically
> much less than one second per solution on my hardware.
Er, what _is_ your hardware anyway? Though I l
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 12:51:55AM +0100, Jiří Paleček <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:50:14 +0100, Linas Zvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Jiri Palecek wrote:
> >>How does aptitude decide which one to choose? Shouldn't it
> >>prefer to do something that
James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The aptitude in unstable and testing has a feature that lists suggested
> ways to fix broken packages.
Unfortunately, the feature doesn't work very well.
Frequently I say "aptitude remove XXX" and the first several
suggestions that aptitude comes up with
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 12:51:55AM +0100, Jiří Paleček wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:50:14 +0100, Linas Zvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Jiri Palecek wrote:
> >>How does aptitude decide which one to choose? Shouldn't it
> >>prefer to do something that won't break other packages? Or shoul
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:50:14 +0100, Linas Zvirblis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Jiri Palecek wrote:
How does aptitude decide which one to choose? Shouldn't it
prefer to do something that won't break other packages? Or should
it ask the user for help?
As for your problem, you must provide way
Hello,
I have a question on how aptitude decides which packages
to install to satisfy dependencies. I was installing vtk yesterday
and it depends on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1. Aptitude chose to install
xlibmesa-gl which in turn broke my x-window-system-core
metapackage. However, I was able to manually
Jiri Palecek wrote:
Hello,
I have a question on how aptitude decides which packages
to install to satisfy dependencies. I was installing vtk yesterday
and it depends on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1. Aptitude chose to install
xlibmesa-gl which in turn broke my x-window-system-core
metapackage. However, I
Hello,
I have a question on how aptitude decides which packages
to install to satisfy dependencies. I was installing vtk yesterday
and it depends on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1. Aptitude chose to install
xlibmesa-gl which in turn broke my x-window-system-core
metapackage. However, I was able to manually f
12 matches
Mail list logo
