Bug#757440: aptitude: wants to remove some package though dependencies are fine

Control: tags -1 + confirmed Control: severity -1 important Control: owner -1 ! On 8 August 2014 16:23, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.11-1 > Severity: normal > > I type 'U', and get for "linux-libc-dev:i386": > > Some dependencies of linux-libc-dev:i386 are not satisfi

Bug#757028: aptitude: aptitude does not install new essential packages automatically

Control: tags -1 + confirmed Control: owner -1 ! On 5 August 2014 09:02, Stanley Schade wrote: > Hi again, > > Am Montag, 4. August 2014, 19:08:35 schrieb Axel Beckert: >> Hi, >> >> Stanley Schade wrote: >> [...] aptitude does not install the new init package automatically, >> > though it is mark

Bug#755677: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#755677: aptitude: Recognizes "Debian Backports" packages as official for downloading changelogs on the CLI, but not in the TUI

Control: tags -1 + confirmed Control: owner -1 ! On 22 July 2014 18:21, Axel Beckert wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.11-1 > Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1 > > Hi, > > I actually ran into the following on Debian Wheezy, but then also was > able to reproduce this in Sid: > > If I try to down

Bug#756510: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#756510: "Couldn't find any package whose name or description matched" ... printed twice

Control: forcemerge 498239 -1 On 30 July 2014 21:19, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.11-1 > Severity: minor > > Doubled error line: > # aptitude install BLAAA > Couldn't find any package whose name or description matched "BLAAA" > Couldn't find any package whose

Bug#757028: aptitude: aptitude does not install new essential packages automatically

On 5 August 2014 01:08, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi, > > Stanley Schade wrote: >> I am running an up-to-date installation of jessie and recently found >> that aptitude does not install the new init package automatically, >> though it is marked as essential. > > ... which is what I would expect. AFAIK

Bug#751117: aptitude segfaults when trying to acquire root powers via sudo

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On 10 June 2014 21:32, Jose Antonio Ortega Ruiz wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.11-1 > Severity: important > > I've got a local configuration file in ~/.aptitude/config with the > contents: > > aptitude::Keep-Unused-Pattern ""; > aptitude::Delete-Unused-P

Bug#750160: RFS: aptitude/0.6.11-1 [RC]

On 10 June 2014 04:58, Axel Beckert wrote: > One remark though about something I didn't notice with the previous > version: > > aptitude doesn't seem to cleanly build twice in a row. After a > non-chrooted build with "debuild" and "debclean" afterwards, > "pdebuild" for the chrooted build initiall

Bug#750160: RFS: aptitude/0.6.11-1 [RC]

On 2 June 2014 19:48, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> Will add: >> >> * debian/control: New Build-Depends on libxapian-dev, >> replacing libept-dev. > > Thanks. > Uploaded (mentors.d.n). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#750160: RFS: aptitude/0.6.11-1 [RC]

On 2 June 2014 19:29, Axel Beckert wrote: > There are at least the following packaging changes which is not > mentioned in the changelog entry, but IMHO should: > > * There's a new build-dependency on libxapian-dev. This seems due to > upstream changes. Nevertheless this should be mentioned in t

Bug#750160: RFS: aptitude/0.6.11-1 [RC]

n. (Closes: #746960) * Remove non-ASCII punctuation from changelog. (Closes: #745680) * Drop apt-xapian-index to Suggests. (and misc. upstream changes, as noted in NEWS) Regards Daniel Hartwig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubs

Bug#463510: aptitude: Remove option to run reportbug

On 2 June 2014 15:17, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > A suggestion is made in the -done mail that would indeed alleviate the > problem somewhat (swapping user ids), but I see no follow-up bug to > arrange for this to happen. > Are you expecting me to file any follow-up bugs? No. See

Bug#750159: aptitude: Manage real and effective user ID for security

Package: aptitude Version: 0.6.10-1 Severity: important Tags: confirmed Aptitude is often invoked using su or sudo for privileges to manage packages. These are not required when calling some other utilities, such as the pager (as in 'aptitude changelog') or reportbug, or creating and accessing us

Bug#671780: aptitude: Please move ~/.aptitude/cache to $XDG_CACHE_HOME (default ~/.cache)

is reverted until a simple mechanism can be decided upon, perhaps similar to what happens with ~/.aptitude/config (only create if the path is within the real users HOME, but even this has some problems). Regards Daniel Hartwig -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ

Bug#748141: aptitude: [INTL:pt] Updated Portuguese translation for program

Control: tags -1 + pending On 15 May 2014 02:48, Miguel Figueiredo wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: n/a > Tags: l10n, patch > Severity: wishlist > > Updated Portuguese translation for aptitude's program messages. > Translator: Miguel Figueiredo > Feel free to use it. > Applied, thanks. -

Bug#748524: aptitude dies with an error message but exits with an exit code of 0 (zero)

Control: forcemerge 675833 -1 On 18 May 2014 08:17, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.10-1 > Severity: normal > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I was trying to hack something together and found, that e.g. > > aptitude changelog bluefish/squeeze-backpor

Bug#747442: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#747442: aptitude: progs run by aptitude (apt-listbugs, how-can-I-help block apt when they crash

On 9 May 2014 02:08, Stephen McGregor wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.10 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > Dear Maintainer, > > the specific situation: > - [ already filed as #747406 against ruby] > -a ruby corruption is crashing both apt-listb

Bug#742708: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#742708: aptitude confused about to-be-installed version

Control: forcemerge 740750 -1 On 26 March 2014 22:37, Ralf Jung wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.10-1 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > Hello > when there are several versions of a package available, aptitude seems to be > confused when I ask it to install a specific version. >

Bug#740750: MarkInstall resets candidate, breaks interactive problem resolution

(Discussion started here: <https://lists.debian.org/deity/2014/03/msg00015.html>) On 12 March 2014 01:21, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:11:57PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:24:37AM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrot

Bug#741875: aptitude: [INTL-it] Updated Italian translation of aptitude po4a docs

Control: tags -1 + pending On 17 March 2014 03:34, Beatrice Torracca wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.10-1 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: l10n patch > > Hello! > > This is the updated .po file with the Italian translation of aptitude > po4a docs (aptitude-doc-it and man pages). > > I did (

Bug#740750: aptitude: Regression: Cannot mark specific version for installation unless dependencies are satisfied

On 5 March 2014 01:25, Andreas Kloeckner wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.10-2 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > previously, I was able to do the following in aptitude: > > 1) Hit [Enter] on a package I wanted. > 2) Scroll down, pick the version I want, hit [+]. > 3) Sort out th

Bug#349414: aptitude: missing format string %-escape for the archive of the installed version

Control: tags -1 = wontfix On 21 February 2014 06:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > Hi, > > The reason why this is not straightforward, as far as I can tell, is > because there's no place where this information is saved. > Right. Archives are sources of

Bug#463510: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#463510: Bug#463510: Bug#412830: aptitude: Remove option to run reportbug

On 3 March 2014 08:40, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-03-03 0:38 GMT+00:00 Daniel Hartwig : >> On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo >> wrote: >>> Control: tags 463510 + pending >>> >>> 2014-02-09 15:52 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fe

Bug#720074: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#720074: Bug#647474: aptitude: When piping, stdout doesn't include "RECOMMENDED but will not be installed"

On 3 March 2014 00:38, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags 647474 + pending > Control: owner 647474 ! > > 2014-02-09 10:43 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo > : >> But as I also said, I think that the way in which Daniel Burrows >> solved this at the time is the wrong way an

Bug#738350: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#738350: Bug#738350: aptitude: "Reconfiguring" missing in Package submenu

On 3 March 2014 08:21, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-03-03 0:12 GMT+00:00 Daniel Hartwig : >> On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo >> wrote: >>> 2014-02-09 16:41 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo >>> : >>>> An

Bug#463510: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#463510: Bug#463510: Bug#412830: aptitude: Remove option to run reportbug

On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags 463510 + pending > > 2014-02-09 15:52 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo > : >> So I am going to remove reportbug and close that bug report, and then >> investigate the other one. > > Abitily to run "reportbug" remove

Bug#562595: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#562595: aptitude: downloads some packages twice

On 3 March 2014 08:29, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 3 March 2014 03:22, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo > wrote: >> Control: tags -1 + moreinfo >> >> Hi, >> >> Is this bug still happening? I haven't experience it, at least >> recently, in several s

Bug#562595: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#562595: aptitude: downloads some packages twice

On 3 March 2014 03:22, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > Hi, > > Is this bug still happening? I haven't experience it, at least > recently, in several systems that I administer. > I suspect this is rather to do with duplicate lines in the progress output as i

Bug#738350: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#738350: Bug#738350: aptitude: "Reconfiguring" missing in Package submenu

On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-02-09 16:41 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo > : >> Another option would be to have them in after a separator, like >> "Information", "Cycle package information" and "Changelog". In fact, >> Changelog is a "immediate" actio

Bug#415449: aptitude: improve package list browsing

On 3 March 2014 00:53, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > Opinions about this? > > I think that it would be nice and I wished for something similar many > times (default binding, not something that I would add and would have > to carry from system to system). >

Bug#671780: aptitude: Please move ~/.aptitude/cache to $XDG_CACHE_HOME (default ~/.cache)

Control: tags -1 + pending On 10 February 2014 06:43, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Hi, > > I created the attached patch, similar to Josh's but moving the cache > if exists. I am fine with integrating Josh's patch as well. > I will merge Josh's patch after some testing this weekend. T

Bug#740009: aptitude: auto-installed package, depended on by non-installed virtual package provider, not removed

On 25 February 2014 05:43, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.10-1 > Severity: normal > > On a (deliberately minimal) system with bsd-mailx, nullmailer, and > libpcre3 installed, but nothing that actually depends on libpcre3 > installed, and libpcre3 set to auto-installed, lib

Bug#738326: Summary of reassigned bug

On 24 February 2014 13:09, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > On 23/02/14 08:00 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote: >> As far as I know 'aptitude why' displays the first reason it can find >> and for aptitude suggests are a reason. They aren't automatically >> installed by it though (but apt/aptitude have an opt

Bug#739934: control files for sections and descriptions

from packages.d.o, which are short and informative. Regards Daniel Hartwig [1] aptitude: using '/section-descriptions' for names and descriptions [2] synaptic: using gettext for names [3] <http://packages.debian.org/unstable/> [4] <http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/8952>

Bug#739854: libapt-pkg-dev: get list of changelog URIs

Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain enough information to implement. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian

Bug#738785: Bug#739854: libapt-pkg-dev: get list of changelog URIs

On 23 February 2014 18:42, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > user debian...@lists.debian.org > usertag 739854 + gift > thanks > > Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact > de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain > enough information to implement

Bug#738785: Bug#739854: libapt-pkg-dev: get list of changelog URIs

user debian...@lists.debian.org usertag 739854 + gift thanks Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain enough information to implement. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subj

Bug#739854: libapt-pkg-dev: get list of changelog URIs

Package: libapt-pkg-dev Version: 0.9.15.1 Severity: minor Noted on another bug [1] and no doubt observed by anyone who has read the source of more than one frontend, libapt should contain a function to generate a list of possible changelog URIs for a package. Currently apt-get, aptitude, synaptic,

Bug#726021: gtest: missing google test shared library (was package libgtest0)

Control: tags -1 + wontfix Yves Fischer wrote: > Dear Maintainer, > with commit "Switch to cmake. Install full source." [1] you removed the > package libgtest0. > Due to this it is not possible to build google test projects in debian > the same way as using redhat linux, where a libgtest/libgtest

Bug#647474: aptitude: When piping, stdout doesn't include "RECOMMENDED but will not be installed"

Control: tags -1 = confirmed Control: owner -1 ! On 9 February 2014 09:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > forcemerge 647474 720074 > severity 647474 minor > owner 647474 ! > tags 647474 + patch moreinfo > stop > > Hi, > > The problem was introduced here in 2007, after a feature request wh

Bug#469100: aptitude: please add short version of commands

On 9 February 2014 03:47, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > I am considering doing this, but even if relatively simple, it would > be quite a lot of work documenting it, adding hints in --help, even > deciding the best short names and solving clashes, possibly

Bug#412830: aptitude: Remove option to run reportbug

On 9 February 2014 03:41, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: block 412830 by 463510 > Control: tags 463510 + moreinfo > > Hi, > > I was pondering about this and I am leaning towards accepting the > suggestion in #463510 and remove the option to run reportbug > altogether, for the reas

Bug#537858: aptitude: comments on i18n

On 8 February 2014 23:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags -1 + pending > > Thanks for raising this up and the recommendations. > > Some of these things are obsolete already, but I addressed most of the > rest of the things, will be present in the new releases: > > http://anons

Bug#570377: aptitude chooses to remove packages instead of upgrading

On 6 February 2014 06:37, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-02-05 00:56:26 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> > On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> >> Again, I am only addressing the pro

Bug#570377: aptitude chooses to remove packages instead of upgrading

On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch. There are better >> options, such as adjusting the default value of >> Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to acco

Bug#357542: aptitude: changelog display does not work on recent uploads

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo [Waiting on feedback whether this is still an issue on the new changelog service run by ftp-master.] On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: owner -1 ! > > This can probably be fixed now by downloading the files from the > target dist

Bug#570377: aptitude chooses to remove packages instead of upgrading

To begin chasing down a real, workable solution: The default SolutionCost is "safety, priority". I suspect the main problem here may be due to the unintended interactions of "priority" when there are/aren't removals involved, but do not have time to investigate further just yet *hint*. -- To U

Bug#570377: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#570377: aptitude chooses to remove packages instead of upgrading

On 4 February 2014 10:24, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-02-04 01:29:30 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> There is nothing fundamentally better or worse about either removals >> or installs, in some situations you might find this: >> >> solution 1: upgrade 20 packag

Bug#570377: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#570377: aptitude chooses to remove packages instead of upgrading

The safety cost levels are not intended to fine tune the results. They are a broad base to start from. There are other parameters for Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to provide tweaking (e.g. "3 * removals + installs"). Details are in the manual, where I think it is quite clear. More det

Bug#357542: aptitude: changelog display does not work on recent uploads

On 1 February 2014 23:25, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-01-31 Daniel Hartwig : >> On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo >> wrote: >>> Control: owner -1 ! >>> >>> This can probably be fixed now by downloading the files

Bug#570377: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#570377: aptitude chooses to remove packages instead of upgrading

On 2 February 2014 14:56, Chris Tillman wrote: > > Tags: patch > > I think the root of the problem (removing being preferential to upgrading > in Aptitude's worldview) is that the safe-level and remove-level default > scores are the same. > Hi Thanks for your interest and patch. Unfortunately,

Bug#720750: aptitude: search returns different numbers of packages depending on sort order

On 3 February 2014 17:46, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-02-03 Daniel Hartwig : >> Control: tags -1 - pending >> >> On 3 February 2014 02:56, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo >> wrote: >>> Control: tags -1 + pending >>> >>> Fix c

Bug#720750: aptitude: search returns different numbers of packages depending on sort order

Control: tags -1 - pending On 3 February 2014 02:56, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: tags -1 + pending > > Fix commited, it will be included in the next release if no problem is > found with the fix. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=aptitude/aptitude.git;a=commitdiff;h=845a

Bug#539978: marked as done ("show" says an installed package is not installed)

On 1 February 2014 13:58, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > The concern being that it is misleading to report "not installed" for > upgrades, though it may be technically correct, in a sense. It has been > suggested to make things more clear by changing the state field to say > "

Bug#539978: marked as done ("show" says an installed package is not installed)

o display both the candidate and installed versions, as apt-cache does. The wip-cmdline branch resolves the version selection issues and will make this issue with State more prominent again. The issue will be tended to in a continuation of that work. Regards Daniel Hartwig [1] http://bu

Bug#357542: aptitude: changelog display does not work on recent uploads

On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Control: owner -1 ! > > This can probably be fixed now by downloading the files from the > target distribution, when the first attempt to get by package name and > version fails, e.g.: > > experimental_changelog > unstable_changelog

Bug#697278: aptitude-common: Please make aptitude installable on non-native architectures

Rogier wrote: > When trying to install aptitude on a non-native architecture, installation > fails because not suitable installation candidates are found for some > dependencies, in particular for aptitude-common: > > [shell transcript] > > I assume a simple 'Multi-Arch: foreign' would fix this ?

Bug#267162: Bug#267162: marked as done (aptitude: "not installed" not noted upon purge)

On 24 January 2014 18:06, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2014-01-24 02:38 Daniel Hartwig: >>This issue and other inconsistencies in the command line interface >>will be addressed by an extensive work I have in progress to >>restructure that module, using new tools

Bug#496724: aptitude-doc-en: html output fails validation

ecking /usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/en/index.html with HTML 4.01 > Transitional document type... > No errors! > > > It seems to have been fixed in this commit, present in 0.6.8: > > commit 59d734c9028463c8b436851960195f8c69ef0693 > Author: Danie

Bug#267162: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#267162: marked as done (aptitude: "not installed" not noted upon purge)

> -- Forwarded message -- > From: Dan Jacobson > To: Debian Bug Tracking System > Cc: > Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:01:49 +0800 > Subject: aptitude: "not installed" not noted upon purge ># aptitude purge libgd2-xpm >... >The following packages have been kept back: > >

Bug#573626: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#573626: Bug#573626: Bug#573626: aptitude: Terrible Interactive Search Performance

On 24 January 2014 05:11, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > That's why I am not sure if it's better to leave this open or close > it. Realistically, I don't think that this is going to be fixed, Not immediately, but that is no reason to close it off. There is real work that can be done her

Bug#718243: aptitude: sources + policy

On 1 August 2013 15:52, Axel Stammler wrote: > The final sources line (localhost) refers to my own collection of scripts, > which I have > used for a long time. It worked without problems under Squeeze. > Do you also get this error when using apt-get? > -- sources.list: > deb http://flora-e/deb

Bug#718243: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#718243: aptitude: complains about supposedly untrusted packages at _every_ install attempt

Control: severity -1 normal On 29 July 2013 13:45, Axel Stammler wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > Severity: important > > Dear Maintainer, > > _Every_ time I call Aptitude with the "install" option, I get a message like > > WARNING: untrusted versions of the following packages wi

Bug#708812: [aptitude] aptitude segfaults upon being called.

Control: block 716828 by 716944 On 24 July 2013 19:03, Lifeng Sun wrote: > [aptitude] suffers another FTBFS bug [6]. The current versions of google-mock and gtest in unstable are incompatible with each other. As google-mock relies on gtest, aptitude will continue to FTBFS until that situation i

Bug#717317: aptitude: segfault when choosing Views -> New Categorical Browser in ncurses interface

Control: tags -1 + confirmed Control: merge -1 686124 On 19 July 2013 17:42, Lorenz H-S wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > upon choosing Views -> New Categorical Browser in aptitude's ncurses inferace, > it crashes reprocducibly with a segm

Bug#716992: aptitude does not purge deleted packages when it asks for user confirmation

On 17 July 2013 01:16, Uwe Storbeck wrote: > Hi Daniel > >> APT::Get::Purge should not have any effect in aptitude. Its name >> indicates it is only used by apt-get. > > Oh, I always thought aptitude "inherits" apt settings ... > Options in the APT namespace, yes, and some others, but APT::Get i

Bug#716992: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#716992: aptitude does not purge deleted packages when it asks for user confirmation

Control: merge -1 568876 Control: tags -1 + confirmed On 16 July 2013 01:07, Uwe Storbeck wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > I have set APT::Get::Purge and Aptitude::Purge-Unused to true. > Aptitude normally honors these settings when it (a

Bug#716944: google-mock: please upload r437 snapshot to syncronize with recent gtest snapshot

Package: google-mock Version: 1.6.0-1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, gtest is recently bumped to 1.7.0~svn20130629-2 [1]. The 1.6.0 release of googlemock is incompatible with this, though r437 [2] is. Please upload that version to keep the packages functional. I appreciate that you do not us

Bug#714429: search for explicitly downgraded packages

On 3 July 2013 15:54, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Hi folks, > > please note that I don't want to loose the information which > packages have been downgraded on purpose. I just want to _list_ > these packages. > > Maybe a new search option could help? > This is almost equivalent to installing an older

Bug#710210: Current and upcoming toolchain changes for jessie

On 2 July 2013 10:56, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I'd like some more information regarding these two bugs, where Boost > has defined but not used a local typedef. > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 09:24:20AM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> severity 710210 serio

Bug#714429: Bug#714429: search for explicitly downgraded packages

On 29 June 2013 17:57, Axel Beckert wrote: > Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> Please list the steps used to downgrade the package. > > Select a package, press "v", press "+" on the package in Testing, > press "g" 2x. > > After the package has been dow

Bug#714186: aptitude's Segmentation fault

Control: tags -1 + pending On 27 June 2013 01:12, Илья Мыльница wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > > When I try to append %r escape to format of status line it crashes and > prints "Ouch! Got SIGSEGV, dying..\nSegmentation fault" and does it every > next running, like that: Thank

Bug#714429: search for explicitly downgraded packages

On 29 June 2013 16:14, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 29 June 2013 15:14, Harald Dunkel wrote: >> Package: aptitude >> Version: 0.6.8.2-1 >> >> Usually I have both testing and unstable in my sources.list. >> Problem: If I explicitly downgrade a package to t

Bug#714429: search for explicitly downgraded packages

On 29 June 2013 15:14, Harald Dunkel wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > > Usually I have both testing and unstable in my sources.list. > Problem: If I explicitly downgrade a package to testing (e.g. > cryptsetup), then > > aptitude search ~U > or aptitude search ~ahold

Bug#713909: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#713909: slash operator when there are more than one /experimental

Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1 Control: tags -1 + wontfix On 24 June 2013 03:18, wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.9.1-1 > > Man page says >Similarly, to select a package from a particular archive, append >"/" to the package name: for instance, "aptitude install >

Bug#713906: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#713906: autoinstall packages persist after purge

Control: severity -1 minor Control: merge -1 590308 Control: tags -1 + confirmed On 24 June 2013 02:03, wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.9.1-1 [This experimental version has been withdrawn, I recommend you downgrade to the latest in unstable.] > > # aptitude -o APT::Install-Recommends

Bug#626251: /usr/bin/apt-get: apt-get source package/oldstable doesn't work either

On 16 June 2013 16:12, Bill Blough wrote: > > As a followup to my previous message - > > When running > > apt-get source > > It appears that needs to be a binary package name, not a > source package name. This makes my earlier observation about the "deb" > entries make a little more sense to me

Bug#671440: pdiffs

On 15 June 2013 07:11, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Joey Hess wrote: >> * Add some kind of profile support, so I can tell apt when it'm in a >> bandwidth constrained environment. > > You can build a config file and load it with -c ~/constrained.conf > That should

Bug#710210: Current and upcoming toolchain changes for jessie

severity 710210 serious severity 710211 serious severity 710253 serious -- On 13 June 2013 20:51, Matthias Klose wrote: > GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM > architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). Raising severity of these bugs according

Bug#618342: aptitude: inconsistent behaviour with apt-cache on non-readable sources.list file

Michael Prokop wrote: > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/foo.list contains something like: > > deb https://$USER:$PASSWD@$MIRROR internal main > > and because of confidential information ($USER/$PASSWD) the file is > read-only for root (600). This is not a comment on the reported bug (not quoted here),

Bug#710689: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#710689: aptitude: use unicode character in the trees

On 2 June 2013 10:42, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 09:25 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> Do you have any complaint with the current drawing of tree nodes, >> other than “its not the precise unicode graphing characters”? > Well not "compliant&

Bug#710751: "why" should work on patterns

On 2 June 2013 11:13, wrote: > The latter should work just like > # aptitude why bluetooth bluez bluez-compat libbluetooth3 > i bluetooth Suggests bluez-cups > p bluez-cupsDepends cups > p cups Suggests hplip > p hplip Suggests python-notify > i python-notify D

Bug#710687: aptitude: highlight the "alternative dependencies bar |"

On 2 June 2013 09:10, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Hi Daniel. > > On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 01:03 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> Unnecessary noise. Visual cues such as alternate colour are quite >> attention grabbing and must be reserved for very important details >> such as e.g. br

Bug#710689: aptitude: use unicode character in the trees

Control: severity 133481 minor Control: merge 133481 -1 On 1 June 2013 23:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > Severity: wishlist > > > Hi. > > It would be nice when aptitude would use unicode characters for the trees in > the > dependency lists, e.g. in

Bug#710662: RM: aptitude/experimental -- RoM; abandoned development preview

Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: aptitude-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org Dear ftpmasters Please remove aptitude 0.6.9.1-1 in experimental. It is decided for some time to abandon this branch, we do no longer support it. The next release will use a higher version number, thou

Bug#710587: aptitude: unable to purge a package

Hello Shirish On 1 June 2013 11:29, shirish शिरीष wrote: > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.9.1-1 > Severity: normal > Can you reproduce this with 0.6.8.2-1? We are unable to support the current experimental version. > $ aptitude search gnotski > c gnotski

Bug#709169: leaks daemon during build, breaking buildd

Control: tags -1 + pending On 25 May 2013 12:30, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 21 May 2013 17:52, Peter Palfrader wrote: >> Package: distcc >> Version: 3.2~rc1-1 >> Severity: serious >> >> Hi, >> >> it seems the distcc build leaks daemons during its

Bug#701243: still... aptitude: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 29 May 2013 14:38, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > Problems in Boost still cause aptitude to FTBFS with gcc-4.8. New > point release to be made available once these blocking bugs are fixed: > > - <http://bugs.debian.org/710210> in libboost1.53-dev > - <http://bugs.debian.org

Bug#680474: /usr/bin/apt-get: apt-get autoremove remove gdm3 & python

On 30 May 2013 14:29, Justin R. Isaacson wrote: > I understand the last post states that this may not actually be a bug, > but for some reason after running apt-get autoremove my debian 7 wheezy > became un-useable as it removed the wpa-supplicant, libre office, pulse > audio, and countless other

Bug#710253: libgtest-dev: GTEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_ triggers unused-local-typedef warning with GCC 4.8

Package: libgtest-dev Version: 1.6.0-2 Severity: normal Tags: upstream patch Control: block 701243 by -1 Dear Maintainer, googletest 1.6 and earlier has GEST_COMPILE_ASSERT_ that triggers unused-local-typedef warnings with GCC 4.8. These are fatal for all users of -Werror e.g. aptitude. Attache

Bug#710208: aptitude: FTBFS with Boost 1.53

Control: tags -1 - patch Test suite requires further work: In file included from ../../../../src/cmdline/mocks/teletype.cc:23:0: ../../../../src/cmdline/mocks/terminal.h:56:9: error: ambiguous template specialization ‘make_shared’ for ‘boost::shared_ptr boost::make_shared()’ boost::ma

Bug#701243: still... aptitude: ftbfs with GCC-4.8

On 28 May 2013 20:17, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> On 3 May 2013 04:56, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: >> > I have now tried building aptitude using ubuntu saucy chroot which has >> > gcc-4.8 and boost1.53. This resulted in the follow

Bug#708170: clone doesn't properly handle blocked-by [only uses blocks]

hing like attached? >From 3ce917993c54c3e84851cfc44e367ba51e97e54d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Hartwig Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 13:35:13 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] make clone properly handle blocked-by bugs * Debbugs/Control.pm (clone_bug): Ensure that each new bug is correctly blocked-by the same bugs a

Bug#710210: libboost1.53-dev: BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT triggers unused-local-typedef warning with GCC 4.8

Package: libboost1.53-dev Version: 1.53.0-4 Severity: normal Tags: upstream patch Control: block 701243 by -1 Dear Maintainer, Boost 1.53 and earlier have a BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT macro that generates unused-local-typedef warnings with GCC 4.8. These are fatal for all users of -Werror. This was pr

Bug#710017: RFS: distcc/3.2~rc1-2 [RC] -- simple distributed compiler

rgency=low [ Daniel Hartwig ] * do not run tests in parallel * debian/patches: - 12_test-debian.patch: NoDetachDaemon_Case is broken and leaves an orphaned process; disabled to keep buildd happy (Closes: #709169) - 14_test-reliability.patch: improve reliability of tests Regards Subj

Bug#709169: leaks daemon during build, breaking buildd

Control: tags -1 + confirmed Control: owner -1 ! On 21 May 2013 17:52, Peter Palfrader wrote: > Package: distcc > Version: 3.2~rc1-1 > Severity: serious > > Hi, > > it seems the distcc build leaks daemons during its build. > > This breaks buildds that try to build it since schroot is unable to >

Bug#709351: synaptic: Synaptic garbles package sources

Control: tags -1 + confirmed Control: merge 360338 -1 On 23 May 2013 23:41, Sebastian Dalfuß wrote: > Hello. > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:50:08PM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote: >> Could you please attach a screenshot of the window that breaks the >> sources.list ? What steps will I need to take to

Bug#708845: Why on package: synaptic 0.75.13 on Debian 7 i see Ubuntu?

Control: severity -1 minor Control: merge 691681 708409 -1 On 19/05/2013 8:33 AM, "Abderraouf Adjal" wrote: > > Package: synaptic > Version: 0.75.13 > Tags: Ubuntu, synaptic > User: Abderraouf A. > > > Why on package: synaptic 0.75.13 on Debian 7 i see Ubuntu? > I am on Debian NOT Ubuntu. > Look

Bug#708812: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#708812: [aptitude] aptitude segfaults upon being called.

On 19/05/2013 1:09 AM, "Javier Vasquez" wrote: > > Package: aptitude > Version: 0.6.8.2-1 > Architecture: mipsel > > After Today's (2013/05/18) "aptitude safe-upgrade", aptitude segfaults > upon calling it. > > I'm attaching the strace log when calling aptitude. > Please install aptitude-dbg and

Bug#703500: guile-2.0-doc: Missing guile-2.0-doc-non-dfsg package

On 16 May 2013 06:36, Rob Browning wrote: > Daniel Hartwig writes: >> The "+1" in the version is not required anymore either. > > Hmm, may still need it since I always repackage the upstream source (I'm > building directly from an upstream derived git branch). &

Bug#703500: guile-2.0-doc: Missing guile-2.0-doc-non-dfsg package

Reuben Thomas wrote: > guile-2.0-doc Suggests guile-2.0-doc-dfsg, which doesn't exist. Either > produce the package or remove the suggestion? Right. There are no longer invariant sections in the docs, and no dfsg/non-dfsg split. The "+1" in the version is not required anymore either. -- To

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >