On 4/7/2000, 10:56:59 PM, "loki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: no wonder...: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 08:48:18AM +0700, Oki DZ wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Richard Taylor wrote: > > > My mileage varies. I find that the program simplifies what can be a > > > vastly more difficult process... that of tracking dependencies, versions, > > > file locations, etc, etc... It does it > > > fairly well and it does it accurately.
> Which doesn't explain why there is a project to create a better top-level > package management tool called "apt"? :) No, it doesn't. Dselect works with apt as far as I know. Nothing's so perfect it can't be improved. > > I think the problem in dselect that it doesn't show the dependency tree. > > The listing of the packages is useful, of course, but it's just a list. > Agreed; it's a plain list, which can be viewed in various ways. What I > think would be better would be the ability to collapse parts of the list > that you're not viewing, like a directory tree. That would be a help as well as filters... > Then you come to the actual conflict resolution part. Possibly it'd be > great if it could detect these conflicts in real-time (I guess this might > not be trivial or speedy to implement), and prompt you. > For example, you select a package and it pops up saying "This package also > requires: foo bar baz wibble snafu... do you wish to install them as well or > cancel installation of xyz?" This lets you select/cancel the whole operation > (and it is one operation really, after all.. people just say "grr.. need > that as well.. alright" so it's not really an independent choice anyway.) > For conflicts, "This package conflicts with the following: foo baz. Do you > wish to proceed (removing those packages), or cancel this install? [y/n]" Ummm... how does your dselect work? Mine does pretty much what you've described above. > Recommendations and suggestions are a little more difficult (since it's > something people are more likely to pick and choose over) but still quite > doable and could be simpler IMO. Also already implemented.
