On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:49:36PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar <at> debian.org> writes: > > > Please be aware that --force-yes makes apt ignore invalid signatures for > > Ouch.
Oh, how disingenuous these apt developers are!
I wonder, what got you: The friendly, very peaceful and gentle option
name --force-yes (who doesn't like to be forced to a yes?), the promise
of ponies and rainbows in the manpage ("destroy your system" … "harmful"
… "should not be used") or are you just running any arbitrary command
you run across on the internet without checking what they do first?
In either case: "Ouch"… I hope it really hurts… *indistinguishable curses*
There is a HUGE difference between being forced to use such an option
because you either don't know the alternative or there isn't one and
just using random options you don't understand and acting like it is
the fault of someone else then you are hurt by it…
> What is the equivalent of --force-yes with*out* --allow-unauthenticated,
> then? This scenario (scheduled non-interactive upgrades) is common…
If only documentation would exists… I think it would read like this:
-y, --yes, --assume-yes
Automatic yes to prompts; assume "yes" as answer to all prompts and run
non-interactively. If an undesirable situation, such as changing a held
package, trying to install a unauthenticated package or removing an essential
package occurs then apt-get will abort.
Configuration Item: APT::Get::Assume-Yes.
You already know --allow-unauthenticated, there is also --ignore-hold.
The other two (downgrade and essential removal) currently lumped together
in --force-yes do not have a dedicated option ATM.
If anyone wants to writing a patch for this feel free to – and achieve
everlasting glory by fixing an apt bug (lots of opportunity, very few
takers)!
Best regards
David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
