On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 18:46 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > My real problem with it is the message this is sending.
Very good point, thanks. > So, while I can accept if we do this to 'fix' aptitude (and I see also > a bit of semantic value in it) I have to highlight that this is not > a blueprint for defaults in or-groups – quite the opposite and something > should be done to 'fix' this in aptitude in general (even through > I realize that this is dangerously close to core principles). What do you think should be the right way to fix this? Should aptitude preference things earlier in the or-group? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
