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.
<sigh>. When you go to the select screen, it tells you which packages are updated. As Scott says, use the `=' key to mark the entire section as `hold' if you desire. : >If you want everything on hold, then place everything on hold :) : : That is not feesable for 2-300 packages. I thought it was possible to choose `All Packages', and then hold, but I see this isn't the case - you've got to do it a section at a time. Sorry. : >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. Hmm. In the first mail I saw from you, you said: : Am I the only one who feels that dselect should not update : packages unless explicitly told to? I didn't see any explanation there. Sorry about that. -- 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]
