On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So the only bug I see here is that it's too hard to get a sensible > > explanation of where autoinstalls (the ones done internally by libapt) > > come from. > > One thing that would have helped me was if aptitude would make it > clearer that it displays actually two separate screens: > > - one in which apt, libapt and python-apt are upgraded, and "a couple > of" new packages are installed > > - and a second one in which apt, libapt and python-apt are held back, > and *no* new packages are installed.
I'm not sure what you mean? > Or by not displaying anything as "will be installed/upgraded" before > aptitude is sure that it will do that, or would if the user hits > [enter]. Of course if a proposed solution to a dependency problem > involves upgrading and installing new packages, that should both be > indicated as part of the solution. But just displaying the result of > "upgrade and install as much as possible" first, and later telling the > user that this doesn't work, this is a suboptimal way to interact with > the poor user... It sounds like you're saying I shouldn't display the state of the program before resolving dependencies? Wouldn't that be horribly confusing if some of the automatically installed packages had dependency errors? "huh? Why do I care that libherring43 had dependency problems? I didn't ask you to install that!" Daniel
