On Thu August 9 2007 12:08:05 pm Florent Rougon wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dselect doesn't force you to install recommended packages; for as
> > long as I can remember (since Bo) it has given you a list with the
> > recommends preselected, and a simple keypress is all that i
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dselect doesn't force you to install recommended packages; for as long
> as I can remember (since Bo) it has given you a list with the
> recommends preselected, and a simple keypress is all that is needed to
> decline them.
I'm afraid your memory is not
On Wed August 8 2007 10:01:40 am Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Just to clarify, aptitude didn't "come up" with anything. This was
> the standard behavior in Debian at the time (dselect was far more
> draconian about forcing you to install recommended packages), and one
> of the top complaints I got wa
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:36:39PM -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Neil Williams wrote:
> > And a script to implement that in every box I have to install. Again
> > and Again and Again and
> >
> > You almost forcing me into maintaining a fork of apt that restores the
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
>
> > No - because the default is already in place in aptitude which is WHY I
> > don't use aptitude. If apt goes the same way, the default configuration
> > of each offers no choice.
> >
> > By the tim
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 00:30:44 +0200
Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The current recommends situaton is bad, but as I see it we have two
> options:
> a) change policy and say recommends should really be suggests
> b) fix apt and go through the transition pain
c) mass bug filing without
"Julien BLACHE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read that but I didn't take it into account because people google
for
docs and they will find documentation recommending apt-get (they usually
won't
notice if the doc
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:19:37PM +, Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 02-08-2007, Mike Hommey:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:01:22AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> PS: I'm very fond of the apache (to be removed) Recommends. really.
> >> especially
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> The only alternative I can think of is to propose the installation of
> the video driver when the hardware is detected; that's way harder to
> implement though.
Working on it...
- David Nusinow
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 02 août 2007 à 13:29 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > d) possibly stores the coredump somewhere for future
> >reference/debugging.
>
> Not without prompting. For reference, an epiphany coredump is between
> 200 and 300 MB.
I'd envision
Le jeudi 02 août 2007 à 13:29 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> 1) Segv handler saves the coredump if the user says to (or coredumps
>are on)
>
> 2) bug-buddy or debreaper (or whatever)
>a) prompts to install appropriate -dbg packages if they're not
> already available;
>b) backt
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:51:50 +0200, Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thursday 02 August 2007 12:01, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> I'd use aptitude if I wanted Recommends installed by default. I'm
>> using apt-get precisely because it's not doing this kind of stupid
>> things.
> I use apti
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:35:40PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Joey Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Shouldn't we then remove recommends entirely and turn them into
> > > regular Depends?
> >
> > The sometime 'soft dependencies' called feature of Recommen
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:35:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is not a question of removing choice. This change in apt is the
> > only thing that *gives* you a choice of installing recommends via apt.
> > That the solution for disabling this
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:28:27PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> Why? What is the point?
The chang
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If they don't enable core dumps in the default config, the backtraces
> > aren't going to be terribly useful (or may not even exist), right?
> > Then the -dbg packages aren't going to help much either.
>
> Do
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> Pushing all this work back to shortly before the next stable release is
> not a good thing.
That's a good rationale; I had mixed feelings when I saw this change,
but now I feel it's better to try to have a constant target all over
the release cycle; this
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If they don't enable core dumps in the default config, the backtraces
> aren't going to be terribly useful (or may not even exist), right?
> Then the -dbg packages aren't going to help much either.
Do you suggest that running gdb on a core dumps makes
02-08-2007, Mike Hommey:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:01:22AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> PS: I'm very fond of the apache (to be removed) Recommends. really.
>> especially on a notebook, it helps understanding how broken the
>> recommends chain is right now
02-08-2007, LoОc Minier:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> *WTF* ? I mean why should I have every possible xserver video driver
>
> You also have all possible kernel drivers built by the kernel image
> installed; that's quite consistent with "any hardware you plugin will
> work
Loïc Minier wrote:
> I'm disturbed by this too, but -- as I clarified on IRC -- I think
> there's a conflict of interests between getting more meaningful
> backtraces in average (and hence improving the quality of Debian before
> the release / saving ourself a message to bug submitters) and
>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Is there any reason why this isn't handled by a
> > /usr/share/bug/gnome/script (or whatever is appropriate) which
> > tells the user to install the -dbg package if they aren't
> > currently installed so backtr
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Is there any reason why this isn't handled by a
> /usr/share/bug/gnome/script (or whatever is appropriate) which tells
> the user to install the -dbg package if they aren't currently
> installed so backtraces can be generated?
While this is an interest
On 8/2/07, Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Most (if not all) of the recent docs I've come to read mentionned
> >> aptitude rather than apt-get.
> >
> > I'm sorry but that's hardly the case. Google finds about 2 or 3 times more
> > referen
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
> Don't we lose it already on October 1st when apt-get installs all
> Recommends per default? It's ok for high-level tools like aptitude
> and Synaptic to behave that way, but I'm not exactly happy for
> apt-get to go that way.
The entire point of Recommend
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Joey Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Shouldn't we then remove recommends entirely and turn them into
> > regular Depends?
>
> The sometime 'soft dependencies' called feature of Recommends and
> Suggests is something which makes Debian unique compared to other
>
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hmm. I would argue that gnome shouldn't recommend gnome-dbg either,
> > according to policy.
>
> I'm disturbed by this too, but -- as I clarified on IRC -- I think
> there's a conflict of interests between
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 11:04:14 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> So that it doesn't ask to install every driver each time. Actually the
> xorg server does that using:
>
> xserver-video-driver-all | xserver-video-driver-1.0 and each
> individual xserver-video-driver-foo provides the latter.
On Thursday 02 August 2007 12:01, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I'd use aptitude if I wanted Recommends installed by default. I'm
> using apt-get precisely because it's not doing this kind of stupid
> things.
I use aptitude and I don't want Recommends to be installed by default. This is
not Windows. Her
Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Please consider two things:
> - More than 90% of all processors are installed in embedded systems (of
> course,
> only on pretty few of them Debian is installed)
> - (Debian) Linux is still more widely spread on server systems than on
> Desktops
> ([1,2] sorry, bot
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:30:33PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Recommends: is easy with small packages, it becomes more difficult when
> each user does different things with the one package.
This is nothing more than an interface problem. For instance, I think
aptitude should make it more obviou
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I'd use aptitude if I wanted Recommends installed by default. I'm
> using apt-get precisely because it's not doing this kind of stupid
> things.
Well, now you're going to use aptitude to not install recommends by
default!
alias aptitude='aptitude
[...]
> I use aptitude for my everyday work. On my desktop, I really appreciate
> pulling in Recommends. On cluster compute nodes, I don't. But I can turn
> it of easily without being "forced" to use apt-get just because I'm on a
> different type of machine. Compute nodes are what I'd call an "unus
Hello!
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:38:06 +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> xserver-video-driver-all | xserver-video-driver-1.0 and each
>> individual xserver-video-driver-foo provides the latter. So it
>> seems either --fix-policy --install-recommends does no
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it's also particularly annoying for our two major recommended
> package installation interfaces, aptitude and apt-get, to do the opposite
> thing by default with this core of a feature. What a recipe for
> confusion for the average user who doesn't know the history an
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:01:22AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> PS: I'm very fond of the apache (to be removed) Recommends. really.
> especially on a notebook, it helps understanding how broken the
> recommends chain is right now.
I don't know for your case, b
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now, from the Debian users I know around me, I can tell you that none
>> of them like aptitude, and they especially dislike the "install
>> recommends by default" so-called "feature".
>
> So what you're really battling against is enforcement of Recommends
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> the point is I installed the proper driver myself. The recommends line
> should be xserver-video-driver-all | every driver |...
And is it?
> xserver-video-driver-all | xserver-video-driver-1.0 and each
> individual xserver-video-driver-foo
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> Neil already contributes a lot of work to Debian. Whether you agree with him
> or not, such an assertion is uncalled for and does not add to the discussion.
I also witness that Neil (and you) did the best thing there is to do:
filing bugs about bog
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:17:03 +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The problem is that apt-get is *not* an advanced user tool. End
>> > users use it because they see it referenced in all our
>>
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Now, from the Debian users I know around me, I can tell you that none
> of them like aptitude, and they especially dislike the "install
> recommends by default" so-called "feature".
So what you're really battling against is enforcement of Recommends,
Joey Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Shouldn't we then remove recommends entirely and turn them into
> regular Depends?
The sometime 'soft dependencies' called feature of Recommends and
Suggests is something which makes Debian unique compared to other
distributions. It would be sad to loose
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Please reread the complete thread quoted above before answering this
>> post.
>
> This is not a solution, this is way more than impractical:
*sigh* (why do I write those disclaimers at all?)
In the thread above, I have proposed having a site speci
Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> > Why? What is the point?
>
> Fix Recommends! These are nothing more than Suggests
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read that but I didn't take it into account because people google for
> docs and they will find documentation recommending apt-get (they usually won't
> notice if the doc is recent or not). Furthermore, there's also the fact
> that on user forums t
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > *WTF* ? I mean why should I have every possible xserver video driver
>
> You also have all possible kernel drivers built by the kernel image
> installed; that's quite consistent with
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Most (if not all) of the recent docs I've come to read mentionned
> >> aptitude rather than apt-get.
> >
> > I'm sorry but that's hardly the case. Google finds about 2 or 3 times more
> > reference to "De
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Most (if not all) of the recent docs I've come to read mentionned
>> aptitude rather than apt-get.
>
> I'm sorry but that's hardly the case. Google finds about 2 or 3 times more
> reference to "Debian apt-get" than to "Debian aptitude".
Way to not rea
On Wednesday 1 August 2007 20:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Please stop whining and start contributing.
Neil already contributes a lot of work to Debian. Whether you agree with him
or not, such an assertion is uncalled for and does not add to the discussion.
Thijs
pgpDqUBWXmenY.pgp
Descriptio
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> *WTF* ? I mean why should I have every possible xserver video driver
You also have all possible kernel drivers built by the kernel image
installed; that's quite consistent with "any hardware you plugin will
work". The dep allows to pick one or m
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that apt-get is *not* an advanced user tool. End users use
> > it because they see it referenced in all our documentation, all the
> > documentation they find elsewhere on the web and in our ma
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 09:45:35AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > apt-cache show openoffice.org-writer |grep Recom
> > Recommends: openoffice.org-filter-binfilter, gij | java-gcj-compat |
> > j2re1.4 | java2-runtime, openoffice.org-java-common (
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hmm. I would argue that gnome shouldn't recommend gnome-dbg either,
> according to policy.
I'm disturbed by this too, but -- as I clarified on IRC -- I think
there's a conflict of interests between getting more meaningful
backtraces in average (and
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that apt-get is *not* an advanced user tool. End users use
> it because they see it referenced in all our documentation, all the
> documentation they find elsewhere on the web and in our mailing list
> archives, all the conversations they h
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is that with packages like gnome-devel and gnome-core-devel
> (re: anjuta) >50% will require SOME of the Recommended packages. As a
> long term anjuta user, I would estimate that <5% of all users need ALL
> Recommended packages.
I've had exa
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And a script to implement that in every box I have to install. Again
> and Again and Again and
Puppet is > that way.
If you have several machines, you may want to to handle them centrally
anyway, and this is a good reason to start. You coul
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 09:44:04AM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Sorry, what do you mean to say here? Are you claiming that having debug
> > packages in Recommends: is somehow a "fix"? I'm quite sure that doesn't fit
> > the Policy definition of Recom
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> apt-cache show openoffice.org-writer |grep Recom
> Recommends: openoffice.org-filter-binfilter, gij | java-gcj-compat | j2re1.4
> | java2-runtime, openoffice.org-java-common (>> 2.2.0-4)
>
> And really, I think this recommends like is perfectly corr
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sorry, what do you mean to say here? Are you claiming that having debug
> packages in Recommends: is somehow a "fix"? I'm quite sure that doesn't fit
> the Policy definition of Recommends -- debugging applications is not at all
> relevant to the commo
[Bernd Zeimetz]
> Especially with -dev packages I can't see a reason to 'recommend'
> another package - either you need foo-dev to be able to use bar-dev,
> or not. Developers usually know which libraries they want to use.
I disagree - I think Recommends is appropriate for a -dev package which
on
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 03:56:48PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (...)
> > > I tried the sample commands and apt wanted to add HALF A GIGABYTE of
> > > unnecessary stuff!!! Others may consider
There is a big difference between Recommends and Depends. Depends are
required for a piece of software to work. Recommends should be installed
with a piece of software the majority of the time, but the software can
still work without them, although some features may be disabled. Suggests
are just
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:30:33PM +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Policy does not mandate that ALL Recommends: are to be installed. The
> new default makes Recommends: disappear completely - there would be no
> difference between Depends: and Recommends: just like there is a
> p
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I mean, recommends means that having the recommends installed may e.g.
> enable some additionnal features in your package.
No, recommends means that:
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
You're thinking of suggests:
This is used to
Neil Williams wrote:
> The problem is that with packages like gnome-devel and gnome-core-devel
> (re: anjuta) >50% will require SOME of the Recommended packages. As a
> long term anjuta user, I would estimate that <5% of all users need ALL
> Recommended packages.
>
> What is the anjuta / gnome-dev
Neil Williams wrote:
> And a script to implement that in every box I have to install. Again
> and Again and Again and
>
> You almost forcing me into maintaining a fork of apt that restores the
> current behaviour from the very start.
Forking apt and putting a line in a config file seem two q
> The problem is that with packages like gnome-devel and gnome-core-devel
> (re: anjuta) >50% will require SOME of the Recommended packages. As a
> long term anjuta user, I would estimate that <5% of all users need ALL
> Recommended packages.
Then the packages should not be in Recommends - Sugges
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil Williams wrote:
> Why would apt now force someone in my situation to add all these
> *unnecessary* packages
Because, if recommends were used properly, they wouldn't be unnecessary.
Also, nobody is forcing you to install anything. Recommends
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:49:27 +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I'd really like it if we could keep apt-get as an advanced user tool;
> aptitude can be used in all the other cases.
The problem is that apt-get is *not* an advanced user tool. End users use
it because they see it referenced in all our d
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:40:44 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > undone whenever I install a new box? I'll certainly need something like
> > that for the cross-built apt for Emdebian
> > - embedded devices will not co
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:52:46 +0200
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy.
>
> : Recommends
> :
> : This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
> : The Recommends field should list packages that would be found
> :
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We have frontends like aptitude to automatically install recommends.
>
> and it's the single frontend doing this: synaptic + apt-get are very
> common and there was no reason to duplicate this logic in all
> frontends.
Keeping the current apt default o
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:38 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > > packages by default on October 1st. This should
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:19:34PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Blindly installing all Recommends: is a BAD idea.
>
My laptop hard disk thought the same when apt asked to install 313 more
Recommended packages and ~900MB of new files. But probably my hard disk
is a stupid piece of old fashione
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> E.g. by filing bugs against package (and possibly NMU them) that
>> abuse the Recommends relationship.
>
> Like moving all Recommends: into Suggests?
Yes.
> Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy.
Quoting Debian Policy 7.2:
: Recomm
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>
> > On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > packages by de
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> > Why? What is the point?
>
> Fix Recomme
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:54:45PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 01, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's just one line in your apt.conf, as described in the original
> > announcement.
> That's just one line in the apt.conf of hundred of servers.
Don't tell me you manually
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not a question of removing choice. This change in apt is the
> only thing that *gives* you a choice of installing recommends via apt.
> That the solution for disabling this in your use case is not immediately
> obvious is not a reason to not ad
Hi,
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 21:46, Neil Williams wrote:
> And a script to implement that in every box I have to install. Again
> and Again and Again and
Hu? You don't change any other configuration on those boxes? Nothing??
regards,
Holger
pgps3qpDnM8C4.pgp
Description: PGP s
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:46:29PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy. What apt is now
> doing is undermining Policy by removing that CHOICE to not use any
> recommended packages.
No, what Policy says is:
`Recommends'
This declares
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 21:19 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:57:01 +0200
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 19:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > > Precisely - just what is the benefit?
> >
> > Stopping to get stupid bug r
> Currently, all you see is a package name - if the default apt behaviour
> was to display the description (ala aptitude) then the user can make an
> intelligent choice.
If the user is able to make an intelligent choice. Even after displaying
the long description for the Recommended packages, a
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:57:01 +0200
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 19:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Precisely - just what is the benefit?
>
> Stopping to get stupid bug reports from either users not having
> installed Recommends: and complaining ab
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> We have frontends like aptitude to automatically install recommends.
and it's the single frontend doing this: synaptic + apt-get are very
common and there was no reason to duplicate this logic in all
frontends.
> Why was such a huge change, totally o
> No - because the default is already in place in aptitude which is WHY I
> don't use aptitude. If apt goes the same way, the default configuration
> of each offers no choice.
>
> By the time I get a chance to switch that option off, the installation
> has added loads of JUNK that I do NOT want.
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 19:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Precisely - just what is the benefit?
Stopping to get stupid bug reports from either users not having
installed Recommends: and complaining about missing functionality, or
users complaining about non-essential Depends: bloating thei
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> Why? What is the point?
Fix Recommends! These are nothing more than Suggests right now --
except in aptitu
On Aug 01, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TBH, I think this is a very good idea. There are a lot of cases in the
> debian archive, were the package maintainer wants to express that a
> related package should really be installed by default, but is not really
> necessary in all cases.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy. What apt is now
> doing is undermining Policy by removing that CHOICE to not use any
> recommended packages.
It's the other way around; in the last months, I bumped plenty of
Recommends to *Depen
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:45:44 +0200
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Precisely - just what is the benefit? I really don't think this is a
> > good idea.
>
> TBH, I think this is a very good idea. There are a lot of cases in the
> debian archive, were the package maintainer wants to
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:45:44PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > > On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We, the APT Development Team, will chang
On 8/1/07, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> (...)
> > I tried the sample commands and apt wanted to add HALF A GIGABYTE of
> > unnecessary stuff!!! Others may consider hard disc space cheap but, in
> > truth, hard disc space is not infinite
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>
>> On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
>> > packages by default on October 1st. Thi
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> Why? What is the poi
On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
Why? What is the point?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
96 matches
Mail list logo
