On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:46:47AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Desired state of packages should never have been in /var/lib/dpkg/status
> in the first place. (And yes, I've had this discussion with the original
> author, who agreed ...)
The problem isn't that "desired states" are kept in the stat
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:46:47AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:48:39PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:03:22PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > There are apparently three package selection databases. These should be
> > > either unified or cr
on Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:46:47AM +0100, Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:48:39PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:03:22PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > There are apparently three package selection databases. These should be
> > >
Colin Watson wrote:
> Desired state of packages should never have been in /var/lib/dpkg/status
> in the first place. (And yes, I've had this discussion with the original
> author, who agreed ...)
In that case does a newer version of dpkg corrected this oversight?
And if not shouldn't there be one?
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:48:39PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:03:22PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > There are apparently three package selection databases. These should be
> > either unified or cross-validated:
> >
> > - dpkg
> > - apt
> > - aptitude
> >
> >
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:03:22PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> There are apparently three package selection databases. These should be
> either unified or cross-validated:
>
> - dpkg
> - apt
> - aptitude
>
> Anyone else running into this?
Karsten, don't bother. Every time someone bri
Karsten M. Self wrote:
> I've got major reservations with where Galeon's gone in the 1.3 branch,
> most of which I feel is a major step backwards. Needless to say, I'm
> not particularly pleased.
Agreed. It really is a completely different application. I really
wish someone would take the 1.2.x
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 08:57:39AM +0800, Katipo wrote:
> Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> >on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:55:27PM -0700, Karsten M. Self
> >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:46:59PM -0700, Karsten M. Self
> >>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >>Turns out to be
Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:55:27PM -0700, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:46:59PM -0700, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Turns out to be a two year old bug. This colors my opinion of aptitude
very negatively:
http://bugs
It seems that Debian and the apt-get utilities have different places
where they keep such information -- I had the opposite case a few
weeks ago, where something I had put on hold in Deboian was not
honored by dselect. Could the authors get together and straighten
out the situation?
on Frid
on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:55:27PM -0700, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:46:59PM -0700, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Turns out to be a two year old bug. This colors my opinion of aptitude
> very negatively:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cg
on Fri, May 21, 2004 at 12:46:59PM -0700, Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I just found my Galeon install inadvertantly updated (I can't say
> upgraded) from 1.2.x (9ish?) to 1.3.14a-1. This despite its being
> listed as "hold" in dpkg --get-selections:
>
> galeon
I just found my Galeon install inadvertantly updated (I can't say
upgraded) from 1.2.x (9ish?) to 1.3.14a-1. This despite its being
listed as "hold" in dpkg --get-selections:
galeon hold
I've got major reservations with where Galeon's gone in the
13 matches
Mail list logo
