On Fri, 13 May 2011, David Kalnischkies wrote: > I personally use them for quiet a while now in this combination with no > issues*, but the differences is barely noticeable - also thanks to the > need for DPkg::TriggersPending=true (needed to "fix" dpkg "bug" #526774)
I have put that bug in my TODO list, I'll try to look into it. > and - to quote apt.conf manpage - "also it breaks the progress reporting so > all frontends will currently stay around half (or more) of the time in the > 100% state while it actually configures all packages.". This should be fixable, no? dpkg reports what it does via --status-fd and APT knows how many packages there are to configure... (even if it doesn't configure them one by one) > Further more it breaks applications listening on the hooks (apt-listbugs comes > to mind) as most of they act on scheduled 'Conf' messages -- which doesn't > exist if APT doesn't plan them obviously. Could be fixed maybe with looking at > 'Inst', but i am not sure why they are looking for 'Conf' in the first place… What hook is that ? Or is that simply analyzing the output of the upgrade plan ? > Note through that triggers like man-db and soon-to-be bash-completion are run > all the time as literally every package ships a manpage (or at least should) > and at least quiet a few a binary in /usr/bin and alike. Maybe the deployment > of triggers which doesn't put the activating package(s) into trigger-awaiting > would be useful for those as they are non-mission-critical… Yes, I should implement this as well. > P.S.: Where does this discussion started off? Pointers anyone? It's an old thread: http://lists.debian.org/4ccb1055.5020...@cfl.rr.com Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
