Quoting Henrique de Moraes Holschuh (2015-04-02 21:52:50)
> In this era of wider displays (even text-mode), it would make a lot of
> sense to change its default display filter to include the archive by
> default.
>
> FWIW, here's the display format I use in aptitude (changeable through
> the Op
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015, at 16:43, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 at 12:02 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > That sounds like you believe aptitude has only a command-line
> > interface.
>
> I was indeed only aware of its command-line interface, until just
> yesterday; comments in this thread mentio
On Ma, 31 mar 15, 17:29:25, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 17:00, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> > I've grepped debian-devel, but cannot find an email that was sent to
> > the list some months ago about tweaks to /etc/apt/apt.conf (IIRC) to
> > make aptitude behave more sanely.
>
2015-04-01 20:43 The Wanderer:
(Sorry for the delay in replying; I had a response within minutes, but
I've been having bizarre Internet-access issues all day, and I'm not
even sure they're gone yet.)
On 04/01/2015 at 12:02 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[The Wanderer]
it is IMO not viable for ac
(Sorry for the delay in replying; I had a response within minutes, but
I've been having bizarre Internet-access issues all day, and I'm not
even sure they're gone yet.)
On 04/01/2015 at 12:02 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [The Wanderer]
>
>> it is IMO not viable for actual use - except perhaps by
The Wanderer writes:
> I remember, years ago, I asked on some Debian list what the intended
> replacement for apt-cache was, since I'd been told that apt-get was
> deprecated in favor of aptitude and I'd seen that aptitude did not seem
> to have equivalents for the apt-cache commands.
For a whil
[The Wanderer]
> it is IMO not viable for actual use - except perhaps by people who
> already know completely what they are doing and how to override
> aptitude's suggestions.
That sounds like you believe aptitude has only a command-line
interface. Mostly I use its full-screen interface. (To se
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 19:34 -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> Note that this does not seem to be due to a lack of people willing to
> work on it though, cf. #750135.
Yeah, I was following that bug in silence ;-)
Cheers,
Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Mar 31 2015, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 23:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> No, it is not. It used to be, but apt's dependency resolver is far
>> superior to aptitude's these days.
> Are there so many cases where you need it? I usually just select what I
> want
+++ The Wanderer [2015-03-31 11:36 -0400]:
> On 03/31/2015 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > On 31 March 2015 at 17:00, Matt Zagrabelny
> > wrote:
> >> Thus, I believe there are a couple of knobs to turn to make
> >> aptitude behave more expectedly.
> >
> > Here is it:
> >
> > $ cat /etc/ap
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 23:18 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> No, it is not. It used to be, but apt's dependency resolver is far
> superior to aptitude's these days.
Are there so many cases where you need it? I usually just select what I
want and install it...
IMHO aptitude is one of the hearts of
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:18:50AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 05:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > I am curious why the aptitude package still has Priority: standard, i.e.
> > why it is installed next to apt in each and every Debian installation?
> >
> > Ap
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> It's tangential to the main topic of this thread, but you might want to
> give /usr/bin/apt a try: it abstracts over apt-get / apt-cache, offering
> a single CLI entry point to (some of) the functionalities of both.
I've used the new apt tool, and I do find it quite an
On 03/31/2015 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 17:00, Matt Zagrabelny
> wrote:
>
>> I've grepped debian-devel, but cannot find an email that was sent
>> to the list some months ago about tweaks to /etc/apt/apt.conf
>> (IIRC) to make aptitude behave more sanely.
>
Hi,
On 31 March 2015 at 17:00, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> I've grepped debian-devel, but cannot find an email that was sent to
> the list some months ago about tweaks to /etc/apt/apt.conf (IIRC) to
> make aptitude behave more sanely.
> Thus, I believe there are a couple of knobs to turn to make ap
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:32 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
> Repeatedly over the years - I'd almost say consistently - I've seen
> aptitude report that a requested package change (install, remove, or
> some combination) would result in an invalid or conflicting dependency
> situation, and suggest a sol
On 03/31/2015 at 09:18 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 05:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>
>> I am curious why the aptitude package still has Priority: standard,
>> i.e. why it is installed next to apt in each and every Debian
>> installation?
>>
>> Aptitude isn't
2015-03-31 15:18 GMT+02:00 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh :
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 05:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> I am curious why the aptitude package still has Priority: standard, i.e.
>> why it is installed next to apt in each and every Debian installation?
>>
>> Aptitude isn't recommended f
Am 31.03.2015 um 15:18 schrieb Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 05:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> I am curious why the aptitude package still has Priority: standard, i.e.
>> why it is installed next to apt in each and every Debian installation?
>>
>> Aptitude isn't recommend
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 10:22, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:18:50AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > apt-get is the simple tool everyone knows about, though. It also needs
> > another simple tools like apt-cache to be really usable.
>
> It's tangential to th
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:18:50AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> apt-get is the simple tool everyone knows about, though. It also needs
> another simple tools like apt-cache to be really usable.
It's tangential to the main topic of this thread, but you might want to
give /usr/bin/apt
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, at 05:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I am curious why the aptitude package still has Priority: standard, i.e.
> why it is installed next to apt in each and every Debian installation?
>
> Aptitude isn't recommended for dist-upgrading since Lenny, I think.
>
> Do we really nee
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:14:16 +0200, Fabian Greffrath
wrote:
>I am curious why the aptitude package still has Priority: standard, i.e.
>why it is installed next to apt in each and every Debian installation?
>
>Aptitude isn't recommended for dist-upgrading since Lenny, I think.
>
>Do we really need
On Ma, 21 oct 14, 09:08:26, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> What I think is being asked for (and what I'd certainly like to see,
> anyway) is a way for the user, having figured out which packages they
> don't want removed, to tell the aptitude resolver that and have it taken
> into account in calculating
> your question is better suited for one of the various support
> channels. Including but not limited to the
> debian-u...@lists.debian.org mailinglists, which are even available
> in different languages.
> Some quick answers anyway:
Thanks
I changed it from the user list at the last minute as
Hi Kevin,
your question is better suited for one of the various support channels.
Including but not limited to the debian-u...@lists.debian.org mailinglists,
which are even available in different languages.
Some quick answers anyway:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Doe
On Sa, 15 Okt 2011, Josh Triplett wrote:
> quickly by using the "reject" and "approve" mechanism. When you view
Thanks for that hint, yes, that works actually much better.
No I only have to remember it ;-)
Best wishes
Norbert
-
Norbert Preining wrote:
> In the current transition to gnome3 (or it seems) I press
> U
> to update all packages, and then it suggests me to remove 30 or
> so packages.
>
> I know this game, normally I have to press "." a few times to come
> to the solution that simply keeps some of the pa
On Fr, 14 Okt 2011, Marvin Renich wrote:
> You can use "aptitude safe-upgrade --visual-preview", though this is not
> particularly convenient when already running the aptitude cua.
That was very useful, and actually works. Great.
> You can also check out "Aptitude::Always-Use-Safe-Resolver".
I a
On Fr, 14 Okt 2011, Jarek Kamiński wrote:
> > Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
>
> You can use aptitude --safe-resolver.
Didn't work either ... still not getting the best result. I still
get "6 removals, 1 keep" instead of "n keeps", and after 30 or so
proposals all removin
On Fr, 14 Okt 2011, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> priority set in /etc/apt/preferences? Mine looks like this and I
Good point. Strange enough I have a *very* strange /etc/apt/preferences
file that I don't remember to have *EVER* created:
Package: *
Pin: release a=unstable-i386
Pin-Priority: 400
Pac
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
>>> Is there such an option? And if not, can we please please have one?
>> aptitude safe-upgrade has been around for years.
> Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
You can use aptitude --safe-resolver.
--
pozdr(); // Jarek
--
To U
* Miles Bader [111014 03:04]:
> Paul Wise writes:
> >> Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
> >
> > Not AFAICT, I only read the documentation rather than the code though.
>
> Kinda surprising, actually; this has long been the #1 most horrible
> thing about aptitude, and one ab
how can I teach aptitude to not be sooo incredible stupid?
In the current transition to gnome3 (or it seems) I press
Maybe experimental (where gnome3 currently resides) has the wrong
priority set in /etc/apt/preferences? Mine looks like this and I
regularly upgrade (through apt-get, though) wi
On Fr, 14 Okt 2011, Miles Bader wrote:
> [With the normal "U" command, for my typical usage, aptitude seems to
> choose the worst possible solution about 98% of the time.]
Agreed on that.
What is the most typical scenario sid people are hitting,
transitions in progress, and that is solved by keep
Paul Wise writes:
>> Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
>
> Not AFAICT, I only read the documentation rather than the code though.
Kinda surprising, actually; this has long been the #1 most horrible
thing about aptitude, and one about which there's been plenty of
complaining.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
Not AFAICT, I only read the documentation rather than the code though.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debia
Hi Paul,
On Fr, 14 Okt 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Is there such an option? And if not, can we please please have one?
>
> aptitude safe-upgrade has been around for years.
Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
Best wishes
Norbert
---
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Is there such an option? And if not, can we please please have one?
aptitude safe-upgrade has been around for years.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
wit
[Frans Pop]
> Not really as these issues generally only occur when packages are
> being *upgraded* using 'aptitude install ', not when they
> are being newly installed.
Sure, they might not happen a lot, but they also happen from within
debian-installer. With Debian Edu/Squeeze, I recently notic
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Steve Langasek]
>> Not only is apt-get now strong enough to handle the cases for which we
>> recommended aptitude in the sarge timeframe (with much better resolution
>> of upgrades, installation of Recommends by default, and tracking of
>> auto-installed packages), but
[Steve Langasek]
> Not only is apt-get now strong enough to handle the cases for which we
> recommended aptitude in the sarge timeframe (with much better resolution of
> upgrades, installation of Recommends by default, and tracking of
> auto-installed packages), but aptitude has also had several d
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:13:11PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> So while raising Boost will "solve" the issue, it seems to me to be
> a recipe for runaway priority inflation.
>
> Is there any central authority to vet priority changes?
Indeed, I think this needs wider attention, next to the
ap
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:38:50AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> - When I type 'aptitude install foo', *removing* foo instead of upgrading
> is not a valid solution and should never be offered.
It's still an outstanding (and irritating) bug as late as yesterday's
sid...
--
Jonathan Wi
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> I've submitted bug 497206 for aptitude with a patch attached almost two
> years ago. It's a new feature, to allow packages to be grouped by
> source. It's usually easier to upgrade all packages from the same
> source, without having to lo
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:59:45AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This manual represents the opinion of a single developer.
> And what does that have to do with the price of bananas in Iceland?
> The fact that aptitude is currently the recommended tool for package
> manageme
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:17:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
> > place "aptitude" in that category, either.
> aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
> it had the best dependency resolver f
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:29:10 -0700, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>Though I think any manual published on debian.org recommending aptitude for
>upgrades is a bug that should be fixed.
Why?
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:29:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:59:56AM -0400, Will wrote:
> > aptitude is the preferred package management tool, so I'm thinking
> > that the priority of libboost-iostreams should be upgraded [1][2].
>
> > [1]
> > http://www.debia
Steve Langasek wrote:
> This manual represents the opinion of a single developer.
And what does that have to do with the price of bananas in Iceland?
The fact that aptitude is currently the recommended tool for package
management has various reasons: user interface, features, dependency
handlin
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:59:56AM -0400, Will wrote:
> aptitude is the preferred package management tool, so I'm thinking
> that the priority of libboost-iostreams should be upgraded [1][2].
> [1]
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch02.en.html#_basic_package_management_operations
Th
6, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Steve M. Robbins" writes:
>
>> I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
>> place "aptitude" in that category, either.
>
> aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
> it had the best dependency
"Steve M. Robbins" writes:
> I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
> place "aptitude" in that category, either.
aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
it had the best dependency resolver for handling the dist-upgrade case.
For so
Folks,
The package "aptitude" is priority "important" and depends on
libboost-iostreams, which is "optional". This is a violation of
Policy section 2.5.
The request of Bug #588608 is to raise the priority of
libboost-iostreams to "important". Reading Policy, I note that
"important" means:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:13:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > Bug #299009 is AFAIK about the fact that aptitude produces different
> > dependency resolutions from the visual UI versus the command-line. This
> > is because the comma
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Bug #299009 is AFAIK about the fact that aptitude produces different
> dependency resolutions from the visual UI versus the command-line. This
> is because the command-line has more context about what the user is
> doing and tweaks the resolver accordingly.
Would you e
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:46:37AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> >
> >Apparently there have been bugs in this for years and no-one reported
> >them until they caused trouble for the d-i team several months ago.
> >They should be fixed in stable's aptitude now, an
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:42:28PM +, Howard Young wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Another dully question.
> Has anyone attempted to configure a browser so that it is able to
> install packages?
>
> An example is the firefox java install.
>
> So say someone comes along to another site called
> carbonf
I suppose I got related problem.
Here are my /etc/apt/preferences
Package: *
Pin: release o=Debian,a=etch
Pin-Priority: 900
Package: *
Pin: release o=Debian,a=sid
Pin-Priority: 400
Package: *
Pin: release o=Debian,a=experimental
Pin-Priority: 300
Package: *
Pin: release o=Debian
Pin-Priority:
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
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
On Sunday 27 March 2005 04:00 am, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> * Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > I just uploaded aptitude 0.2.15.9 to Incoming. Most of the changes
> > in this version are translation updates, but I also included a
> > backport of the apt-secure enhancements that were previously only
> > a
* Daniel Burrows wrote:
> I just uploaded aptitude 0.2.15.9 to Incoming. Most of the changes
> in this version are translation updates, but I also included a
> backport of the apt-secure enhancements that were previously only
> available in experimental (including, as a
> special-freebie-never-befo
Have you tried "dpkg --remove apt-listchanges" or
"dpkg --purge apt-listchanges"?
Daniel
--
/ Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---\
| "You see, I've already stolen the spork of wisdom |
|and the spork of courage.. t
"David A. Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> guarantee it will work because it seems as though apt thinks
> apt-listchanges is still installed.
This is a matter of configuration files; try purging apt-listchanges,
and if that doesn't work remove /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/20listchanges
yourself.
--
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0400, David A. Greene wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >If you had wanted to find out the answer before sending this to
> >debian-devel, you would not have had to look very far.
> >bugs.debian.org/python-apt has the answer three times over.
> >
> >http://bugs
[Cc-ing to deb-usability-list]
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:05:25AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Before the wish list, I propose to do a step back and do some task
> > analysis.
> Also after this we need to prioritize them considering efforts needed to
> achieve them.
You mean efforts for doing th
[I'm Cc-ing deb-usability-list so that people interested in usability
can know what's been discussed in -devel about it. I invite others to
do the same]
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 12:06:45AM -0800, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > I'm interested in helping in the menu issue, too; I've offered help some
> > mo
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 07:47:42AM -0400, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > The first bugreport on an aptitude problem caused by #111914 just rolled
> > in. (namely, the http method breaks badly when run from aptitude) This
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 07:47:42AM -0400, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> The first bugreport on an aptitude problem caused by #111914 just rolled
> in. (namely, the http method breaks badly when run from aptitude) This is
> a known problem that comes from the apt librar
Previously Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> Robert Ramiega ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I must have missed it... Anyway it needs dpkg.h and i cant find it on my
> > system... Searcher on Debian Web site can't find it either =o((
>
> it's in dpkg-dev.
It used to be, but I remove libdpkg and its header-file
Fabien Ninoles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 08:35:52PM +0100, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:23:50AM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> > > > I tried to find it on download.stormix.com but failed
> > >
> > > It's in
> > > ftp://download.stormix.com:/storm/
On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 08:35:52PM +0100, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:23:50AM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> > > I tried to find it on download.stormix.com but failed
> >
> > It's in
> > ftp://download.stormix.com:/storm/dists/rain/main/source/
> I must have missed it... An
Robert Ramiega ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I must have missed it... Anyway it needs dpkg.h and i cant find it on my
> system... Searcher on Debian Web site can't find it either =o((
>
it's in dpkg-dev.
--
(jacob kuntz)[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED],underworld}.net
(
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 07:23:50AM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> > I tried to find it on download.stormix.com but failed
>
> It's in
> ftp://download.stormix.com:/storm/dists/rain/main/source/
I must have missed it... Anyway it needs dpkg.h and i cant find it on my
system... Searcher on Debian W
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Robert Ramiega wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:00:27PM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> >
> > You just miss another one: sl-stormpkg from Stormix.
> > Sure, it's not on potato but add
> > deb ftp://download.stormix.com/storm potato main
> > in sources.l
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:00:27PM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
>
> You just miss another one: sl-stormpkg from Stormix.
> Sure, it's not on potato but add
> deb ftp://download.stormix.com/storm potato main
> in sources.list and install sl-stormpkg.
>
> It's GPLed, GNOME-based, used whatever com
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:23:12PM +0900, Julian Stoev wrote:
> I personally don't like the Stormpkg thing. Maybe I am broken by
> dselect ;) I included slink ftp in apt and got many nice programs,
> which are not part of Stormix using dselect. No problem at all. But
> Stormpkg may be b
On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 08:00:27PM -0500, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
|Stormix make great efforts to make their distributions fully
|compatible with Debian. This should be applaused, especially
|in regards to the mess that some other vendors made. I hope
|to try it in a week or two.
Two days ago I intro
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 07:52:40AM -0800, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> Just take my comments as a wish list for the future, I
> know this stuff is still alpha grade (but still very
> usefull). Nice thing about debian is that it not only
> has a bullet resistant package manager (not bullet
> proof as pe
Just take my comments as a wish list for the future, I
know this stuff is still alpha grade (but still very
usefull). Nice thing about debian is that it not only
has a bullet resistant package manager (not bullet
proof as per some of the slink->potato upgrade horror
stories I've been reading), but
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 08:26:00AM -0500, Daniel Burrows was heard to say:
> > What gets me is that aptitude, apt-get, deselect, and gnome-apt all
> > seem to give slightly different info on which packages
> > are broken, will be deleted, or are on hold. Are the
> > dependancy rules interperted di
90 matches
Mail list logo
