Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
>> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
>> transition to a new package name. Users of suc
Le lundi 02 juin 2008 à 11:22 +0200, Olivier Berger a écrit :
> Hi.
>
SNIP
>
> Of course, I hope there's an explanation in this very case of why ntp
> and update-manager got removed... and any hints would be welcome too ;)
>
For the records, I have some bits of response : asking the maintaine
Hi.
Le jeudi 29 mai 2008 à 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
> Heya,
>
> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
On Fri May 30 2008 10:20:51 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > All packages on live servers and workstations are installed with "dpkg
> > -i" to ensure we're using a tested combination. We could manually copy
> > the package lists or "apt-get install foo=x.y.z" but "dp
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ssh test-box
> apt-get update
> apt-get upgrade
> tests
> ssh live-server
> apt-get update
> ... sometimes gets a slightly different package list
Oh, yes. That's certainly true.
> The only time we use apt-get is as a convenience when testing differen
Hi,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Wolf Wiegand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maybe it should be mandatory to always have a transition package for
> > packages which are being removed from the archives? For example, when
> > package X_0.1 is to be removed from the archive, there has to be a
>
Wolf Wiegand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
>> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
>> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
>> aroun
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 06:17:44PM +0200, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> James Vega wrote:
> > As of version 0.4.11, this does happen. From the NEWS file:
> > * Command-line updates in aptitude will now list packages that are
> > newly obsolete. This doesn't work when a
Hello,
Make sure I think dpkg is a great tool..
home:/root# echo $(grep -c "dpkg" .bash_history)/$(wc -l .bash_history)
40/502
On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 05:06 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 21:37:28 +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> > I suggest to modify dpkg so it refuse to instal
On Thu May 29 2008 16:58:41 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Many people do extra levels of testing before
> > rolling out updates with "dpkg -i". With "apt-get"
> > you never know when the package lists will be updated.
>
> Uh... the package lists are updated when y
Hi,
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 21:37:28 +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> I suggest to modify dpkg so it refuse to install package, unless the
> option "--insecure" is specified. Such option's manpage description
> would be :
That'd be mostly just annoying for no actual benefit. It would break
existing so
Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Many people do extra levels of testing before
> rolling out updates with "dpkg -i". With "apt-get"
> you never know when the package lists will be updated.
Uh... the package lists are updated when you run apt-get update. I must
be missing something.
--
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> One could create dummy transition packages that `provides` the removed
> package :
or conflict with them in a "suported-lenny" package.
But I think obsolete packages can be mail-warned in security reports just
like vrms or something. "PAckages needing p
Hello,
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 14:40 +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt schrieb:
> > For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
> > which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
> > transition to a new package name. Users of suc
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>
> Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we
> might need to fix this - we just need to decide how. The probably
> easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages that are not
> available in any version at one of the locations speci
Hi,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
> around, usually never noticing the fact that n
On Thu May 29 2008 12:37:28 Franklin PIAT wrote:
> Using `dpkg -i` really is insane as far as security is concerned :
The above statement is false.
Many people do extra levels of testing before
rolling out updates with "dpkg -i". With "apt-get"
you never know when the package lists will be upda
CCing debian-dpkg for obvious reasons.
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 14:18 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > The probably easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages
> > that are not available in any version at one of
Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> Aptitude shows a group of "obsolete and locally created packages".
> However, it doesn't distinguish between them, as far as I can tell,
> which is what Marc (and I) would like.
There really is no current way to do this. Case in point: if you use
wget and dpkg -i to ins
On 29-May-08, 07:07 (CDT), Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we
>
> That is not entirely true: aptitude (and also dselect) does clearly display
> obsolete and locally built packages in a sep
* Stefano Zacchiroli [Thu, 29 May 2008 14:18:35 +0200]:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > The probably easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages
> > that are not available in any version at one of the locations
> > specified in sources.list.
James Vega wrote:
> As of version 0.4.11, this does happen. From the NEWS file:
> * Command-line updates in aptitude will now list packages that are
> newly obsolete. This doesn't work when a source is removed and
> all its packages become obsolete, for technical reasons.
Hmm. New Debi
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05/29/08 08:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I usually run 'apt-show-versions | grep -v uptodate' to find them. The
>>> remaining list is short enough to be analyzed manually.
>> I don't think normal use
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 02:40:07PM +0200, Kai Wasserbäch wrote:
> And for me that is enough, though a automatic notification by
> aptitude, when a package is added to that category would be nice.
As of version 0.4.11, this does happen. From the NEWS file:
* Command-line updates in aptitude wil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/29/08 08:01, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>>> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
>>> which are removed f
Hello,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt schrieb:
> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
> around, usually never noticing the fact tha
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
>> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
>> transition to a new package name. Users of su
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> The probably easiest way would be to make apt whine on all packages
> that are not available in any version at one of the locations
> specified in sources.list. This trivial solution sucks, because
> locally created packages
/me seems to remember a fairly recent discussion about this...
Right: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/03/msg00354.html
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Our current package management doesn't handle this case at all, so we
That is not entirely true: aptitude (and also dselect) does clearl
Le jeudi 29 mai 2008 à 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
> Heya,
>
> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
> ar
On 29/05/08 at 13:24 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Heya,
>
> For some time now, I have been thinking about the problem of packages
> which are removed from the archive at some point, without an (enforced)
> transition to a new package name. Users of such packages keep them
> around, usual
31 matches
Mail list logo
