On Sat,11.Oct.08, 10:20:57, Hal Vaughan wrote: [...] > I still maintain that the issue had more to do with the issue than the > response said, however in that case, but I felt the responder was more > interested in writing it off than in dealing with the issue or helping > me figure out where the bug should have been categorized under. Sorry Hal, I have to disagree here. Aptitude is just a package manager frontend, it doesn't have any responsibility whatsoever about what maintainer scripts do on your machine (in this case it's the scripts of linux-image-*). You would have triggered the same behaviour by 1) using apt-get instead of aptitude[1] 2) dpkg-reconfigure linux-image-*.
As for the response of Christian Perrier, I'm sure he didn't mean to be rude[2], it's just that the tone is hard to replicate in writing. [1] actually dpkg is the one installing packages and running the maintainer scripts. AFAICT apt[itude] just feed it a list of packages to install/remove/whatever. [2] I'm also subscribed to debian-i18n where a lot (most?) of Christian's activity happens and I've been reading his posts for while. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
