On Fri, 15 May 1998, Steve Lamb wrote: : On Fri, 15 May 1998 10:56:44 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote: : : >: Am I the only one who feels that dselect should not update packages : >: unless explicitly told to? : : >Could you be more specific? I've never had dselect update a package if : >I didn't want it to ... I place those packages on hold. : : Exactly. If you didn't explicitly put it on hold it would update it : automatically. It should be reverse, IE, on hold until I tell it to update.
But isn't that the point of a packaging system? This way, bug-fixes, security fixes, etc. are integrated into the system simply by running dselect every now and then. deselect *does* present you with a list of what it's going to update (or more correctly, updated packages). If you want everything on hold, then place everything on hold :) I'm not trying to be flippant, but you still haven't listed a specific example of where the default behavior is wrong, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
