On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 06:37:00 +0000 Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> wrote:
> Ian Jackson:
> > Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bug#904678: dpkg-reconfigure apt-file ought to
> > give me sources contents"):
> >> [...]
Hi Ian,
I just updated apt-file/3.2 with the list-indices.
> >> But we can certainly improve the situation despite of that. As I
> >> understand you, the primary key issue is finding the index names. What
> >> do you think of a "list-indices" command a la:
> >
> > That helps, but I think documentation improvements are also needed.
> >
>
> Certainly. Concrete pointers/ideas are welcome. :)
>
I am still hoping for some pointers on where / what you would to see the
documentation improved. You are almost certainly right but I am the
wrong person to spot where it is and what is missing (it has all become
"obvious" to me after having worked with this).
> >> """
> >> $ apt-file list-indices
> >> +-----------------+-----------------------------+
> >> | Index Name (-I) | DefaultEnabled (Apt config) |
> >> +-----------------+-----------------------------+
> >> | deb | <unset> |
> >> | udeb | false |
> >> | deb-legacy | <unset> |
> >> | dsc | false |
> >> +-----------------+-----------------------------+
> >> """
> >
> > This is a good idea.
> >
>
> [...]
>
This is now implemented. I also added a column that tells you if a
given index has data.
> > I still want enabling this feature to be easier. How about a
> > providing a command which edits /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/50apt-file.conf to
> > enable the sources contents ? And, presumably, also runs apt update.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ian.
> >
>
> IMO, the APT config format is too flexible to be trivial to edit in
> general with more corner cases than I expect I will get right. But I
> suppose we could make apt-file generate a 60apt-file-auto.conf using a
> subset of the format (apt-config dump) and with comments to encourage
> people to stick with that format.
>
> The separate file also has the advantage of avoiding "gratuitous
> conffile prompts" for people that just enabled the indices but are
> otherwise happy with the defaults.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Niels
>
No progress here. I was getting stuck, so I preferred getting an
incremental improvement out rather than staying stuck.
Thanks,
~Niels
