Hi,
- If I see a new package installed by someone else,
* if nothing depends on it, mark it "Unknown; probably manually installed"
* otherwise, mark it "Unknown; probably automatically installed"
Consider
apt-get install foo
apt-get remove foo
This leaves libfoo1, which was pulled in by foo an
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 07:51 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> You may also want to set a flag on packages that are assumed to be
> automatically installed, but of which you have no information.
aptitude never should assume that a package is automatically installed,
unless it performs the aut
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:02:03PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 December 2004 03:37 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > ? It seems like "Unknown" would just be a synonym for "No", right?
> >
> > Uh, yes. I think.
> >
> > You may want to explain that a bit more.
>
> Well, from the
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 03:37 pm, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > It seems like "Unknown" would just be a synonym for "No", right?
>
> Uh, yes. I think.
>
> You may want to explain that a bit more.
Well, from the bug report, it looks like the proposal is to maintain the
current behavior, but
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 01:53:20PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 December 2004 09:01 am, Simon Richter wrote:
> > aptitude could be taught to have "auto-installed" being Yes,No or
> > Unknown. Whenever a package that is in "Unknown" state could be removed
> > if it were only instal
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 09:01 am, Simon Richter wrote:
> aptitude could be taught to have "auto-installed" being Yes,No or
> Unknown. Whenever a package that is in "Unknown" state could be removed
> if it were only installed as a dependency, aptitude should list them in
> the "actions to be p
Package: aptitude
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
[aptitude not properly handling packages installed by other tools]
ACK. I very much prefer the way debfoster handles this: if there are
new, unknown packages on the system, it will ask, rather than assume,
whether a package is wanted or not. And will only do
Op wo, 15-12-2004 te 05:57 -0600, schreef Marcelo E. Magallon:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:20:09AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>
> > > The other problem with aptitude is touted as a design feature: it
> > > tends to be all-or-nothing. Either you use it always or you don't
> > > (automatic re
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:20:09AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > The other problem with aptitude is touted as a design feature: it
> > tends to be all-or-nothing. Either you use it always or you don't
> > (automatic removal thingie). This becomes a problem when multiple
> > persons use d
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The other problem with aptitude is touted as a design feature: it tends
> to be all-or-nothing. Either you use it always or you don't (automatic
> removal thingie). This becomes a problem when multiple persons use
> different interfaces for
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:52:05AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Completely and utterly wrong in my case. I'm exactly the sort of
> person that you apparently think should like dselect, but I think
> aptitude is _far_ superior, for both experts and newbies. The
> competition isn't even close.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 10:21:07PM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> aptitude has a nice usage "enter" means drill down, this is intuitive.
>
> 'q' means quit/leave level backward - this is intuitive
I have to say that 'q' doing something other than quitting the program
strikes me as being totally
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you don't like dselect and don't fall in one of the cases I have
> mentioned, then we have a problem.
Ok, I'll be more explicit: I don't like dselect, and I don't fall into
any of your cases.
dselect is perhaps not as completely awful as some peopl
Steve Greenland writes,
> Which, of course, isn't to say that it should be
> removed. I was surprised by how many people still use
> it; I hope some one will pick [dselect] up.
Dselect is sufficiently important to me that, as time
permits, I mean to pick it up.
Another competent person with more
On 10-Dec-04, 17:02 (CST), Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, it is because the shortcuts are completely non-intuitive. I use
> > aptitude for the good intuitive keymapping, not for its menu.
>
> I see. You find them utterly unintuit
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:35:22AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> apt-get and apt-cache are my friends, and I love them for letting me
> specify what I want to do in a way that is intuitive to me. Altough I
> wish I could tab-complete package names sometimes. ^_^
If you're running bash you can so
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've always thought that people who say they hate dselect (or, worse,
> that dselect is crap) fall into one of the following cases:
>
> (a) allergic to text-mode interfaces
> (b) type or click without thinking
> (c) haven't used it for more than 5 yea
On Friday 10 December 2004 04:23 pm, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:22:08PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > If you want to find alternatives for a virtual package, you can use 'd'
> > and 'r' to navigate the dependency lists. It's not as convenient as
> > dselect, but it wo
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it is because the shortcuts are completely non-intuitive. I use
> aptitude for the good intuitive keymapping, not for its menu.
I see. You find them utterly unintuitive, and are not alone. I don't
claim they are really "intuitive" (for what it mea
* Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041210 22:18]:
> > Their main grief towards dselect is therefore formulated as "awkward,
> > non-intuitive user interface" as you wrote above.
>
> No, it is because the shortcuts are completely non-intuitive. I use
> aptitude for the good intuitive keymappin
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:22:08PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> If you want to find alternatives for a virtual package, you can use 'd' and
> 'r' to navigate the dependency lists. It's not as convenient as dselect, but
> it works.
Well actually you can enter the package you dont want to hav
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> I understand that this may be unpleasant to some people
It is not a problem for me that dseclt has no menu, it is a problem that the
keys are totally unintuitive, and some screens are really bothering.
aptitude has a nice usage "en
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 10:03:01PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> So, I guess some people simply don't like the *type* of control
> interface dselect offers, cause they want to see menus and widgets all
> around instead of having to learn that $keystroke will perform $action.
>
> Their main grief
Blunt Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do I consider this a problem? Not particularly. It is my problem, as
> much as anyone's. This is a sophisticated sysadmin tool, and I am only
> an occasional sysadmin, by no means sophisticated.
So, I guess some people simply don't like the *type* of con
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
>> [1] I still use both versions and happen to often hit instead of
>> when I use sid's one, which doesn't have any bad
>> consequences (simply scrolls help). And the problem will d
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:13:29 +0100, Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just trying to understand
> people who bash dselect on the first occasion. If you don't like dselect
> and don't fall in one of the cases I have mentioned, then we have a
> problem. Simply preferring aptitude is *n
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> [1] I still use both versions and happen to often hit instead of
> when I use sid's one, which doesn't have any bad
> consequences (simply scrolls help). And the problem will disappear
> automatically when I don't have
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Completely and utterly wrong in my case. I'm exactly the sort of person
> that you apparently think should like dselect, but I think aptitude is
> _far_ superior, for both experts and newbies. The competition isn't even
> close.
Did I mention aptitude in
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Er, these are shortcuts. *shrug*
>
> Uh, so there is a non-shortcut method of operating?
I awaited this comment, but didn't know which other word to use. No, I
don't claim there is a non-shortcut method. I would say that dselects'
control interface co
Miles Bader dijo [Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:52:05AM +0900]:
> Completely and utterly wrong in my case. I'm exactly the sort of person
> that you apparently think should like dselect, but I think aptitude is
> _far_ superior, for both experts and newbies. The competition isn't even
> close.
ME TOO!
On Thursday 09 December 2004 06:35 pm, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:27:50PM +, Roger Lynn wrote:
> > The last time I used aptitude (about six months ago, from Testing), I
> > found it difficult to specify how I wanted dependencies
>
> You just use "g" and resolve the dep
Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've always thought that people who say they hate dselect (or, worse,
> that dselect is crap) fall into one of the following cases:
>
> (a) allergic to text-mode interfaces
> (b) type or click without thinking
> (c) haven't used it for more than 5 yea
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:27:50PM +, Roger Lynn wrote:
> The last time I used aptitude (about six months ago, from Testing), I
> found it difficult to specify how I wanted dependencies
You just use "g" and resolve the dependencies? (Kind of same as in dselect)
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO)
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> > And the need to use upper-Q in conflict resolution to keep the selections
> > one has made manually is also pretty confusing.
> Er, these are shortcuts. *shrug*
Uh, so there is a non-shortcut method of operating?
> management (I
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current aptitude, by contrast, seems both powerful and elegant: it
> rarely gets in my way, deals well with problem situations, and offers
> powerful features should I want them (aptitude of years past could also
> be kinda cranky though).
The last time
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:08:53PM +0100, Florent Rougon wrote:
> I've always thought that people who say they hate dselect (or, worse,
> that dselect is crap) fall into one of the following cases:
>
> (a) allergic to text-mode interfaces
> (b) type or click without thinking
> (c) haven't used
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:30:50PM -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
>>Having
>> "enter" exit the
>> selection process (rather than simply selecting the entry) is
>> perennially surprising,
>
> And the need to use upper-Q in conflict resolution to keep the s
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:30:50PM -0800, Blunt Jackson wrote:
>Having
> "enter" exit the
> selection process (rather than simply selecting the entry) is
> perennially surprising,
And the need to use upper-Q in conflict resolution to keep the selections
one has made manually is also pretty confus
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:32:35 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:23:16PM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> > Maybe I'm still waiting for my first real problem to show up, but I
> > generally find dselect to be a real pleasure to use.
> >
> > Could you present
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 10:23:16PM -0500, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:11:31AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
>
> > I used dselect a lot back in the day (I don't know, like up until 2000
> > or so?). It had a clunky but useable interface (though I fully
> > understand how new
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:11:31AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> I used dselect a lot back in the day (I don't know, like up until 2000
> or so?). It had a clunky but useable interface (though I fully
> understand how newbies could get frustrated), and generally worked all
> right until there was a
Gergely Korodi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From time to time I give a try to aptitude and synaptic, but always recoil
> in horror. I don't know what the fuss is about aptitude, IMHO it's way
> more complicated to use than dselect, and less clear as well.
Amazing
I used dselect a lot back
42 matches
Mail list logo
