On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:51:15PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
> "Michael Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> - automatic removal of unused dependencies moved into libapt so that
>> applications like synaptic, python-apt, update-manger etc directly
>> benefit from
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> As already said elsewhere in this thread, that's exactly the point of
> "unattended-upgrades": It detects if manual user interaction is
> required, and will not upgrade the package in this case.
There might be some manual steps involved. For exampl
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Vogt wrote:
>> unattended-upgrades comes with a default configuration that will only
>> apply security updates (but it can be configured in any way people
>> want) and it will do some careful checking to not upgrade packages
>> that require
Michael Vogt wrote:
> unattended-upgrades comes with a default configuration that will only
> apply security updates (but it can be configured in any way people
> want) and it will do some careful checking to not upgrade packages
> that require manual intervention bia conffile prompts. It will also
"Michael Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Friends,
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
It will break the ABI, so all packages that depend on libapt will n
I am definitely a GUI person (aptitude is the last non-GUI program
with a GUI available that I still use), but I still prefer aptitude to
any other. I was under the impression that most others did too, is it
not the recommended Debian way?.
Yes (but that's a reported bug, #418455)
--
To UNSUBSC
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:16:49PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> That's because they're not the latest files. The latest output form
> >> the DDTP project is here:
> >> http://ddtp.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/
> >>
> >> The
Michael Vogt wrote:
> This is currently turned off because of the concerns raised. its a
> matter of changing the default of "APT::Install-Recommends" to true.
>
> I want to turn it on by default in the near future, but with a
> reasonable warning time for the transition.
Here are the places we'
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:39:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> The frontends imho just need a clear way of showing which packages are
> going to be installed because of a Depends and which because of a
> Recommends, so it would be easier to de-select a recommended package.
>
> Otherwise there wo
On 11-Jun-07, 08:45 (CDT), Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Really? I'd have guessed that most people used aptitude. I can't imagine
> > anyone preferring synaptic to aptitude. Of course, I don't really
> > understand w
On 10-Jun-07, 20:16 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
> > > synaptic,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:03:47AM +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > upgrade path for two releases now, with its Recommends: handling being a
> > major reason for this. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least *some*
> > users switching to it as a result.
>
>
> Developer
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:39:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> FWIW, synaptic has an option in its preferences dialog called "Consider
> recommended packages as dependencies", which is off by default.
>
> I completely agree, to treat Recommends as "weak dependencies" and
> install them by d
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Montag, den 11. Juni 2007:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > I want to turn it on by default in the near future, but with a
> > > reasonable warning time for the transition.
> > Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
>
> Recommends *are* to be installed by default, unless you specifically tell
> the tool not to. This is the whole point, one that has bee
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
>
> > i have 2 servers that i only login for apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
> > -y, they are running sarge (yet) and only install security upgrades.
> >
> > These 2 serve
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Really? I'd have guessed that most people used aptitude. I can't imagine
> anyone preferring synaptic to aptitude. Of course, I don't really
> understand why anyone prefers [any graphical MUA] to mutt, or [any
> graphical newsreader
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
Recommends *are* to be installed by default, unless you specifically tell
the tool not to. This is the whole point, one that has been broken for a
few *years* now and has cause
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > I want to turn it on by default in the near future, but with a
> > reasonable warning time for the transition.
> Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
> installed by default. I consider this really a dangerous opt
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another widely misunderstood feature of aptitude is the ability to
> handle packages installed as dependencies. It's pretty often badly
> understoood and leads to horror stories floating around of "aptitude
> wants to remove half of the system" while
Michael Vogt schrieb am Montag, den 11. Juni 2007:
Hi,
*snip*
> [..]
> > - automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
> [..]
>
> This is currently turned off because of the concerns raised. its a
> matter of changing the default of "APT::Install-Recommends" to true.
>
> I want to turn
> upgrade path for two releases now, with its Recommends: handling being a
> major reason for this. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least *some*
> users switching to it as a result.
Developer users probably. The ones that resist are more non-developer
users. I'm constantly being annoyed at
On Monday 11 June 2007 04:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
> aptitude is priority: important, and while it's not used in the
> installer or mentioned in the installation manual (AFAIK),
Although no installer components use aptitude directly, tasksel - which is
called during almost all installations - do
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:06:44PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Well, that might be just my general pessimism rearing its ugly head :).
> My impression has been that aptitude wasn't getting very many *new*
> users, but it might just be that aptitude users are a self-sufficient
> bunch and do
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:36:15PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> The problem isn't that individual, it's that the general attitude
> towards Recommends seems, from my personal and highly biased
> viewpoint, to be evolving towards a "strong Suggests" model, rather
> than a "
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
> > synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:13:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > Bug #299009 is AFAIK about the fact that aptitude produces different
> > dependency resolutions from the visual UI versus the command-line. This
> > is because the comma
On 6/10/07, Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
> synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
Really? I'd have guessed that most p
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
> > synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
>
> Really? I'd have g
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
>> synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
>
> Really? I'd have guessed that most people used aptitude. I can't imagine
> anyone preferring synaptic to aptitude
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Bug #299009 is AFAIK about the fact that aptitude produces different
> dependency resolutions from the visual UI versus the command-line. This
> is because the command-line has more context about what the user is
> doing and tweaks the resolver accordingly.
Would you e
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:05:49PM -0500, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
>
> [Daniel Burrows]
> > I'm in favor of either enabling this by default in apt or downgrading
> > Recommends in policy to just a "really Suggests".
> [snip interesting background material]
>
> I wo
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
> of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
[..]
I just uploaded apt, python-apt and synaptic. If binNMUs could be
arranged for the remain
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the time I added Recommends support to aptitude (2001), dselect was
> still fairly widely used, and new aptitude users, while they didn't
> miss dselect's strong-arming them into installing recommends, did wish
> that aptitud
[Daniel Burrows]
> I'm in favor of either enabling this by default in apt or downgrading
> Recommends in policy to just a "really Suggests".
[snip interesting background material]
I would suggest - nay, I would recommend - keeping Policy the way it is
and fixing packages to use Recommends as it
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:49:00PM -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Michael Vogt wrote:
> > - support for the new dpkg "Breaks" field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
> > his work on this)
>
> Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
> it, AFAIK..
Daniel Burrows a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
>>> term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with
>>> the aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour to the one
>>> in libapt).
>> In wh
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:45:06AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> aptitude throws out the solution of "revert all the proposed changes
> and stay at the current state". Setting Aptitude::Discard-Null-Solution
> to false will disable this behavior.
*sheepish loo
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 07:42:40AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > > term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with
> > > the aptitude depende
On 6/10/07, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's because they're not the latest files. The latest output form
> the DDTP project is here:
> http://ddtp.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/
>
> There have been requests to have the FTP site mirror from there or
> have some other mecha
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/10/07, Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I might not have been clear on the wording. To fix this situation,
>> ftp://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/Translation-ja.bz2
>> needs to be encoded in UTF-8 instead of EUC
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:46:37AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> >
> >Apparently there have been bugs in this for years and no-one reported
> >them until they caused trouble for the d-i team several months ago.
> >They should be fixed in stable's aptitude now, an
On 6/10/07, Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I might not have been clear on the wording. To fix this situation,
ftp://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/Translation-ja.bz2
needs to be encoded in UTF-8 instead of EUC-JP. (and I am wondering
why this file is dated back to May 2
Apparently there have been bugs in this for years and no-one reported
them until they caused trouble for the d-i team several months ago.
They should be fixed in stable's aptitude now, and I would appreciate
bug reports on any transition problems that remain.
FWIW, I thought that you acknowledged
Hi,
> I quickly tested the experimental apt, and it looks broken here.
>
> 1. Japanese translated description file is currently provided in
>EUC-JP codeset.
>
> 2. when I do apt-cache show in ja_JP.EUC-JP locale, 'apt-cache show'
>stops halfway (probably when the iconv fails in UTF8ToCod
On 08-Jun-07, 09:40 (CDT), Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why did it want to remove your packages? I can't think of any reason
> that missing the previous release should have caused problems --
> unless maybe there were broken dependencies that needed the previous
> release in orde
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> > term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with
> > the aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour to the one
> > in libapt).
>
> In what way is it superior? Unti
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:55:59AM +0200, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> #include
> * Russ Allbery [Wed, Jun 06 2007, 08:40:47PM]:
>
> > > Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
> > > packages as a result of the most minor package removal?
> >
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:40:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 06/06/07 17:59, Michael Vogt wrote:
>
> >> I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with the
> >> aptitude dependency problem resolver (t
Hi,
> - translated package descriptions (finally!) - thanks to all the people
> who made this possible (otavio, grisu and the ones that I forgot)
I quickly tested the experimental apt, and it looks broken here.
1. Japanese translated description file is currently provided in
EUC-JP codeset
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> - automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
Please inform the buildd maintainers about this. The buildds must not
hit this changed default or the builds will get unreliable.
Bastian
--
Our missions are peaceful -- not for
> > - automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
>
> I want to check how this will affect d-i. The Recommends tree is still
> fairly hairy/unrefined and can result in a lot of crud being pulled in.
> (See #388290. Though having them installed by default would certianly
> add pressure to fi
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
> > of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
>
> Big thanks and kudos for your w
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> > Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
> > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 07, 20
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > How is what you describe different from what cron-apt already does?
>
> That's precisely why I asked for details about this feature :-)
>
> Anyhow, what I'm missing from cron-a
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:32:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Well, if you run stable (without third-party sources), that is all you
> will get along with the occasionaly point release. Of course, if you
> are keeping up with security updates, then point releases won't normally
> affect yo
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 06:21 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez escreveu:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> > Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
> > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 1
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 13:01 +0200, Gabor Gombas escreveu:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
>
> > i have 2 servers that i only login for apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
> > -y, they are running sarge (yet) and only install security upgrades.
> >
> > These 2 server will
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> i have 2 servers that i only login for apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
> -y, they are running sarge (yet) and only install security upgrades.
>
> These 2 server will not be put in danger by making the update && upgrade
> in an autono
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:26:50PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > How is what you describe different from what cron-apt already does?
>
> That's precisely why I asked for details about this feature :-)
>
> Anyhow, what I'
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> How is what you describe different from what cron-apt already does?
That's precisely why I asked for details about this feature :-)
Anyhow, what I'm missing from cron-apt is the ability to perform
automatic upgrades only for st
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > > > The big new stuff is:
>
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > > The big new stuff is:
> > > - support for unattended installing security upgrades (via the
>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > The big new stuff is:
> > - support for unattended installing security upgrades (via the
> > unattended-upgrades package and the apt cronjob)
>
> This sounds ju
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #include
> * Russ Allbery [Wed, Jun 06 2007, 08:40:47PM]:
>> No, that's not done by the dependency resolver. That's done by the
>> code that removes packages that you never told it should be installed.
>> This problem goes away completely if you only u
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:49:00PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael Vogt wrote:
> > - support for the new dpkg "Breaks" field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
> > his work on this)
>
> Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
> it, AFAIK..
In this case apt will be ready
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:44:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Michael,
Hi Steve,
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> > I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
> > of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
Hi,
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007, Michael Vogt wrote:
> I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
> of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
Big thanks and kudos for your work!
> - automatic removal of unused dependencies moved into libapt so that
>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> The big new stuff is:
> - support for unattended installing security upgrades (via the
> unattended-upgrades package and the apt cronjob)
This sounds juicy, assuming it matches what I've in mind; where can I
find more info on this n
#include
* Russ Allbery [Wed, Jun 06 2007, 08:40:47PM]:
> > Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
> > packages as a result of the most minor package removal?
>
> No, that's not done by the dependency resolver. That's done by the code
> that removes packages that yo
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 06/06/07 17:59, Michael Vogt wrote:
>> I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with the
>> aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour to the one in
>> libapt).
> Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove
On 06/06/07 17:59, Michael Vogt wrote:
[snip]
term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface
with the aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour
to the one in libapt).
Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
packages as a result of the
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 21:49:00 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Michael Vogt wrote:
> > - support for the new dpkg "Breaks" field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
> > his work on this)
>
> Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
> it, AFAIK..
It will have on 1.14.5.
regards,
Michael Vogt wrote:
> - support for the new dpkg "Breaks" field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
> his work on this)
Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
it, AFAIK..
> - automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
I want to check how this will affect d-i. The
Hi Michael,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
> I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
> of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
> It will break the ABI, so all packages that depend on libapt will need
> a rebu
75 matches
Mail list logo
