On 2018-09-26 10:38 -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> I just encountered some weird problem around installing bumblebee-nvidia
> using
> apt and aptitude on Debian Unstable. Here's what I did:
>
> $ sudo apt purge '*nvidia*'
> $ sudo apt autoremove --purge
>
Dear all,
I just encountered some weird problem around installing bumblebee-nvidia using
apt and aptitude on Debian Unstable. Here's what I did:
$ sudo apt purge '*nvidia*'
$ sudo apt autoremove --purge
$ sudo apt update
$ dpkg --print-architecture
amd64
$ dpkg --print-foreig
project is unlikely to alter this nor endear your request to the
aptitude maintainers.
As implied in my original reply, a general discussion regarding a
distribution-wide move to XDG ~/.config directories might be
suitable for -devel, but any further discussion about the aptitude-
specific case sho
Reply in-line :-
On 29/04/2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Shirish,
>
Chris,
>> Had already done it, see #894332 , But don't think it's not going to
>> go anywhere from the last two times :( as it seems the effort to do it
>> is not the worth the effort as shared by the maintainer.
>>
>> At least I t
Shirish,
> Had already done it, see #894332 , But don't think it's not going to
> go anywhere from the last two times :( as it seems the effort to do it
> is not the worth the effort as shared by the maintainer.
>
> At least I tried, well guess just will have to learn to live with it.
Thank you
at bottom :-
On 29/04/2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi shirish,
>
>> Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file
>> path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
>
> Unless you are requesting a distribution-wide move from ~/.foo
> to XDG ~/.config
Hi shirish,
> Re: what do people feel think of changing the configuration file
> path from ~/.aptitude/config to ~/.config/aptitude
Unless you are requesting a distribution-wide move from ~/.foo
to XDG ~/.config/foo, filing a wishlist bug against the aptitude
package would seem
Dear all,
First of all thank you all the fine people who have contributed to
packaging and maintaining the whole suit of apt, aptitude, apt-get,
dpkg low and high-level variety of tools in Debian for system
administration and making good choices.
Please CC me if you any thoughts as although I&#
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 (chang
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;
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
> >
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.
I was indeed only aware of its command-line interface, until just
yesterd
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.
I was indeed only aware of its command-line interface, unt
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-
[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 i
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
ly just select what I
> want and install it...
>
> IMHO aptitude is one of the hearts of Debian, since it makes package
> management a pleasure compared to anything else I'd know within or
> outside of Debian.
>
> Development seems to be stalled these days, [..]
Note
+++ 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.
> &g
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
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 Debi
do find it quite an improvement over
apt-get, but I still have several use cases for which I currently use
aptitude and for which I do not see an obvious alternative with apt:
- Every time I update, aptitude lets me browse newly added packages,
which I find quite helpful to keep up with what&#
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
>> (IIR
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 knob
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
> si
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
>> installatio
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?
>>
>>
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?
>&
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.
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
Hi there,
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 to have two CLI package management tools installe
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
> in
On 10/20/2014 at 11:59 AM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 09:32:54AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
>> David Kalnischkies:
>>> This isn't trying harder, it is trying increasingly incorrect
>>> solutions to the problem because aptitude a
o. I haven't seen any official documentation saying that
> > > > this is a bad thing to do.
> > >
> > > aptitude actively warns against it as highlighted in this thread.
> >
> > Wrong! I purge removed packages almost all the time with aptitude,
> >
ome!
>
> Since there is a patch for the package aptitude, in my opinion quilt
> should be added to Build-Depends, it is not included now.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Sphinx
Regards
David
Description: gcc 4.9 FTBFS corrections
-Werror=unused-function
serialize_pattern_list in sr
member apply in strip_shared_ptrs_result:
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT code commented out. Needs a better solution.
Author: David Westberg
Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/746824
Index: aptitude-0.6.10/src/generic/apt/matching/serialize.cc
> 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
:
> Does this work and is aptitude the best way to update whilst ignoring
> incorrect or even debatable dependencies or can apt-get do so too.
The best way is to not choose this way. Or any other way suggested in
this superuser thread. Packages usually have dependencies for a reason,
not just becau
http://superuser.com/questions/95509/tell-aptitude-to-ignore-broken-package
Does this work and is aptitude the best way to update whilst ignoring
incorrect or even debatable dependencies or can apt-get do so too.
Is equiv a fast and easy solution?
Currently I am getting fix broken on steam
[Andreas Beckmann]
> Looks like we should start doing some automated upgrade tests with
> aptitude ... jenkins.debian.net would be one solution, piuparts
> another (anybody who wants to write a patch?).
A few years ago I did chroot upgrade tests like the one done by
jenkins.debian.n
> > > Aptitude installs all recommended packages by default which was rather
> > > annoying until I found that in the options menu as I ran out of space a
> > > couple of times.
> >
> > as does apt-get.
>
> I'm fairly sure synaptic do
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:15:12PM +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On 2013-04-09 17:57, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> [...]
> >>> I'm not sure if it makes sense to recommend aptitude in its present state.
> >> I wouldn't recommend it when operating with multiarch enab
> > Aptitude installs all recommended packages by default which was rather
> > annoying until I found that in the options menu as I ran out of space a
> > couple of times.
>
> as does apt-get.
I'm fairly sure synaptic doesn't select recommended by default, h
On 2013-04-09 17:57, Osamu Aoki wrote:
[...]
>>> I'm not sure if it makes sense to recommend aptitude in its present state.
>>
>> I wouldn't recommend it when operating with multiarch enabled. Otherwise it's
>> mostly fine.
Looks like we should sta
On 04/09/2013 11:57 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:32:52AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
On 09/04/2013 06:43, Adam Borowski wrote:
Have you been able to get that effect from aptitude? It seems that
whenever it sees some trouble (sometimes even when plain apt-get
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:32:52AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 09/04/2013 06:43, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:19:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> >> Actually, in the event of aptitude not being able to resolve the
> >> dependenc
Hi,
> Le Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:02:27PM +0300, Eugene Lychauka a écrit :
> > http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.html#pkgmgmt
> >
> > Here we can read:
> >
> > "The preferred program for interactive package management
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Wookey wrote:
> Is anyone actually working on making the aptitude multiarch-friendly, or
> planning to?
It appears so, see the bottom of this mail:
http://lists.debian.org/deity/2013/04/msg00027.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:29:09PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
[cut]
>
> I too am a huge aptitude fan. The curses UI is brilliant for working
> out what's up when things are a bit broken. However it doesn't deal
> with multiarch well so I've been stuck with apt-get trying to w
Le mardi 9 avril 2013 13:29:09, Wookey a écrit :
>
> I too am a huge aptitude fan. The curses UI is brilliant for working
> out what's up when things are a bit broken. However it doesn't deal
> with multiarch well so I've been stuck with apt-get trying to work out
>
+++ Chow Loong Jin [2013-04-09 09:32 +0800]:
> On 09/04/2013 06:43, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:19:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> >> Actually, in the event of aptitude not being able to resolve the
> >> dependencies
> >> satisfact
On 2013-04-09 11:05, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> Aptitude installs all recommended packages by default which was rather
> annoying until I found that in the options menu as I ran out of space a
> couple of times.
as does apt-get.
--
brother
http://sis.bthstudent.se
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> For instance, one of the (ugly) boxes I help admin recently
> had 1000 pacakges yet to update and > 60 security packages not done, and not
> enough space on the box to do them.
Aptitude installs all recommended packages by default which was rather
annoying until I found that in
On Monday, April 08, 2013 18:43:06, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:19:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > Actually, in the event of aptitude not being able to resolve the
> > dependencies satisfactorily the first round (from aptitude install foo),
> >
On 09/04/2013 06:43, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:19:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> Actually, in the event of aptitude not being able to resolve the dependencies
>> satisfactorily the first round (from aptitude install foo), aptitude allows
>> yo
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:19:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> Actually, in the event of aptitude not being able to resolve the
>> dependencies satisfactorily the first round (from aptitude install
>> foo), aptitude allows you to interactively pic
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 04:19:19AM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> Actually, in the event of aptitude not being able to resolve the dependencies
> satisfactorily the first round (from aptitude install foo), aptitude allows
> you
> to interactively pick other solutions, or tell it what
Le Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:02:27PM +0300, Eugene Lychauka a écrit :
> http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.html#pkgmgmt
>
> Here we can read:
>
> "The preferred program for interactive package management from a
> terminal is aptitude
On 08/04/2013 23:02, Eugene Lychauka wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.html#pkgmgmt
>
> Here we can read:
>
> "The preferred program for interactive package management from a
> terminal is aptitude. For a non-interactive com
On Monday, April 08, 2013 11:02:27, Eugene Lychauka wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.htm
> l#pkgmgmt
>
> Here we can read:
>
> "The preferred program for interactive package management from a
> terminal is aptitude. For
http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-whats-new.html#pkgmgmt
Here we can read:
"The preferred program for interactive package management from a
terminal is aptitude. For a non-interactive command line interface for
package management, it is recommended to use ap
On Sb, 13 oct 12, 16:55:17, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>
> If you don't fall for such placebo effects you are unfortunately out of luck
> as "host" is the default, but you can use a service like http.debian.net
> (which only works so well because "host" is the default …) to get a
> real benefit - a
On Jo, 11 oct 12, 18:22:50, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:59:35AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
> wrote:
> > Of course, being able to download stuff from two different servers at the
> > same
> > time had a better end result, and as long as is one download at a
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:59:35AM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> Of course, being able to download stuff from two different servers at the
> same
> time had a better end result, and as long as is one download at a time per
> server, I think it can be considered socially ac
On Thu 11 Oct 2012 09:59:35 Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer escribió:
[snip]
> Well, parallel download does **greatly** improves speed when you access
> international servers, like we had to do in Argentina until some few weeks
> ago.
WRT non i386/amd64 archs.
--
Programming today is a race
On Thu 11 Oct 2012 02:55:24 Marco d'Itri escribió:
> On Oct 11, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > > apt-fast is a shellscript wrapper for apt-get that can drastically
> > > improve apt download times by downloading packages in parallel, with
> > > multiple connections per package.
> >
> > well, isn't it
Package: wnpp
Owner: "Elmar S. Heeb"
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: aptitude-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: aptitude-robot
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : "Elmar S. Heeb"
* URL : https://github.com/
On Oct 11, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > apt-fast is a shellscript wrapper for apt-get that can drastically improve
> > apt
> > download times by downloading packages in parallel, with multiple
> > connections
> > per package.
> well, isn't it huge load for repository servers?
As a mirror operator
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 23:53:31 +0200
Dominique Lasserre wrote:
> * Package name: apt-fast
> apt-fast is a shellscript wrapper for apt-get that can drastically improve apt
> download times by downloading packages in parallel, with multiple connections
> per package.
well, isn't it huge load fo
: shellscript wrapper for apt-get or aptitude
apt-fast is a shellscript wrapper for apt-get that can drastically improve apt
download times by downloading packages in parallel, with multiple connections
per package.
It uses aria2 oder axel as download managers and apt-get --print-uris to get
Hi,
since not all read Planet Debian, just a short heads up that the
current Aptitude developers plan to stop building aptitude-gtk from
the aptitude sources -- unless someone steps up and resurrects the
currently buggy and unpopular aptitude-gtk, maybe even as its own
source package.
See the
TL;DR: aptitude does keep dpkg/status and apt/extended_states
up-to-date with the *current* state of a package, just like other
software. Please do not grok pkgstates to determine if something is
installed, etc.
On 18 March 2012 23:16, John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell
wrote:
> Hi, I l
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
-
n that simply keeps some of the packages at the current
> level.
>
> Well, normally it is a few times ".", no with gnome3, I stopped after
> 100 (hundred!) times pressing ".", and still aptitude does not suggest
> the simple solution to keep all those gnome3 pack
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::Alway
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&qu
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();
* 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
&
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
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 t
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 plen
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 wis
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.
Hi everyone, esp aptitude masters,
how can I teach aptitude to not be sooo incredible stupid?
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 ".&q
gt; Isn't a lock needed in that case as well?
> >
> > That should a different lock. Currently, when _dowloading_ aptitude
> > holds a lock that prevents _installing_.
>
> It also needs to hold apt and synaptic from downloading, at least from
> downloading the
Peter Samuelson writes:
> [Simon Chopin]
>> But I believe what Stanislas mean is to unpack while downloading the
>> rest of the packages. I often wondered why it wasn't the case, but
>> I've assumed so far that there was probably a reason I just could not
>> think of :)
>
> I think it is because
hink that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
>> > and this can be relaxed.
>>
>> What if you would launch two download-only ops at the same time?
>> Isn't a lock needed in that case as well?
>
> That should a different lock. Currently, when _dowloading_
[Simon Chopin]
> But I believe what Stanislas mean is to unpack while downloading the
> rest of the packages. I often wondered why it wasn't the case, but
> I've assumed so far that there was probably a reason I just could not
> think of :)
I think it is because, in the general case, it is not a
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Simon Chopin
wrote:
[...]
>> > As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same
>> > problem: aptitude itself can be improved so that it is able to
>> > download and unpack in parallel. If it were doing this then the l
Hi !
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 09:47:21AM -0200, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
[...]
> > As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same
> > problem: aptitude itself can be improved so that it is able to
> > d
therefore I cannot promise any help with it and
may only ask for other people that may be interested in implementing
this. Maybe in a competing software (was there something called cupt?)
> > As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same
> > problem: aptitude
On Friday 04 February 2011 12.47:21 Fernando Lemos wrote:
> do, say, an "apt-get upgrade", apt prepares an upgrade "plan" that
> uses a given set of packages. If apt wouldn't lock [...]
> new plan would have to be created, the user would
> have to be asked for confirmation again. Doesn't sound that
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Fernando Lemos wrote:
>> This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
>> case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
>> and this can be relaxed.
>
> As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), when
ation that a dependency could be affected by such an
> action, but is not it easy to check for this right before unpacking?
As always, the (small) APT team is happy to apply well crafted patches.
(and i am sure that is true for aptitude as well)
The usecase is so small that until now nobod
alid anymore (e.g., new "Breaks" or "Conflicts" were
introduced). So a new plan would have to be created, the user would
have to be asked for confirmation again. Doesn't sound that great.
> As Julian Taylor mentioned, there is also another side of the same
> proble
l
> > and this can be relaxed.
>
> What if you would launch two download-only ops at the same time?
> Isn't a lock needed in that case as well?
That should a different lock. Currently, when _dowloading_ aptitude
holds a lock that prevents _installing_.
--
Stanislav
--
To U
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:40AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
> wrote:
> > This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
> > case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
> > and this can be
1 - 100 of 304 matches
Mail list logo
