Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe that we agree that the autoinstalls which aptitude does
> before displaying a prompt should be explicitly output in dependency
> order, or at least you should be able to get that information from
> the prompt.
Agreed.
> So you get something like:
>
>
> Automatically resolving dependencies...
> wesnoth Depends wesnoth-data
> ...
>
> Continue? [Y/n]
>
>
> I like this idea, although for very large installs, like the one that
> started this bug, I wonder if this would be counterproductive.
AFAICS it was one binary package ("foo") which had a new dependency
("bar"), which in turn pulled in all the rest. In this case it would be
sufficiently clear, and easier to read in large installs, if we only had
foo Depends bar
bar Pulls in baz, fee, faa, fuu, rubber, dubber, doo.
without specifying in detail how the dependency/recommendency chain
leads from bar to doo.
>> +
>> + Do not install NEW depended-on or recommended packages:
>> + libbla, libfasel, libblubber, pciutils, pci-inutils, ...
>>
>> Score is -30
>
> Here, are you referring to the fact that aptitude cancels
> installations that are no longer necessary after dependencies are
> resolved? I think that's what you're saying,
Yes, that's what I meant.
> I'm sorry if I'm really out in left field here or not following
> your messages. I feel like I'm missing out on an important point -- could
> you maybe try pounding it into my head again? :)
No, I think these are the main points that are left after I understand
what was going on.
Thanks, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
