On Fri, 15 May 1998, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 1998 11:04:55 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote: > > >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). > > Right, and the person should *CHOOSE* which packages are to be updated. > This automatatic unless otherwise specified path reaks of Microsoft. > > >If you want everything on hold, then place everything on hold :) > > That is not feesable for 2-300 packages.
Go to the select screen, hit 'o', go to the top of the updated packages section (the header), hit '='. There, all the updated packages are 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. > > Yes, I have. Placing unstable directories into the path to keep up with > current versions of applications while not having to worry about other things > being updated. IE, having the *OPTION* to choose to upgrade, not to upgrade > outright. That's what placing packages on hold is good for. There are simple ways of marking everything on hold if you want to. Don't change the documented and standard behavior, I assure you that I'll be very put out if dselect suddenly stops upgrading my system when I run it. -- Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
