Dear all,
I upgrade my apt to 0.9.16.1 , my /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/10periodic is:
##3
APT::Periodic::Update-Package-Lists "0";
APT::Periodic::Download-Upgradeable-Packages "0";
APT::Periodic::AutocleanInterval "0";
APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade
On Sb, 05 feb 11, 12:35:47, PMA wrote:
>
> I have often read advice to the effect that it is best to choose *ONE*
> package-handling strategy (dpkg OR apt-get OR aptitude OR synaptic)
> and stick to it -- if only to ensure a consistent system representation
> of my package installations history.
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
wrote:
> On 02/05/2011 03:35 PM, PMA wrote:
>>
>> I have often read advice to the effect that it is best to choose *ONE*
>> package-handling strategy (dpkg OR apt-get OR aptitude OR synaptic)
>> and stick to it -- if only to ensure a consistent
On 02/05/2011 03:35 PM, PMA wrote:
I have often read advice to the effect that it is best to choose *ONE*
package-handling strategy (dpkg OR apt-get OR aptitude OR synaptic)
and stick to it -- if only to ensure a consistent system representation
of my package installations history.
Since they u
Okay, I misunderstood that it was only for upgrading Debian 5 to 6. I thought
it was for upgrading packages. Thanks
On Saturday February 5, 2011 11:00:37 am Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:22:23AM -0500, Kete wrote:
> > Hello, why have the authors of the Debian 6 release not
I have often read advice to the effect that it is best to choose *ONE*
package-handling strategy (dpkg OR apt-get OR aptitude OR synaptic)
and stick to it -- if only to ensure a consistent system representation
of my package installations history.
In preparing to install a given package, what wo
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:22:23 -0500, Kete wrote:
> Hello, why have the authors of the Debian 6 release notes chosen to
> recommend apt-get? Just a few months ago, I read some other official
> documentation recommend aptitude. Why is Debian flip flopping? Now, I
> have to learn apt's commands, and a
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Kete wrote:
>
> Hello, why have the authors of the Debian 6 release notes chosen to
> recommend apt-get? Just a few months ago, I read some other official
> documentation recommend aptitude. Why is Debian flip flopping? Now, I have to
> learn apt's commands, and al
HI,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:22:23AM -0500, Kete wrote:
> Hello, why have the authors of the Debian 6 release notes chosen to
> recommend apt-get?
Because it is more robust for non-interactive dist-upgrade.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_lit
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:22:23AM -0500, Kete wrote:
> Hello, why have the authors of the Debian 6 release notes chosen to
> recommend apt-get? Just a few months ago, I read some other official
> documentation recommend aptitude. Why is Debian flip flopping? Now, I have to
> learn apt's command
Hello, why have the authors of the Debian 6 release notes chosen to
recommend apt-get? Just a few months ago, I read some other official
documentation recommend aptitude. Why is Debian flip flopping? Now, I have to
learn apt's commands, and already, an apt-cache search doesn't tell me which
pac
Nick Hastings wrote:
Hi,
* Art Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041021 09:18]:
I have upgraded to the newest apt-proxy and things have become really
sl. I spend a lot of time [Waiting for headers]. Is there some
configuration that I'm missing?
Sounds like you're experiencing a know bug
Hi,
* Art Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041021 09:18]:
> I have upgraded to the newest apt-proxy and things have become really
> sl. I spend a lot of time [Waiting for headers]. Is there some
> configuration that I'm missing?
Sounds like you're experiencing a know bug (don't know the numbe
I have upgraded to the newest apt-proxy and things have become really
sl. I spend a lot of time [Waiting for headers]. Is there some
configuration that I'm missing?
Art Edwards
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
> Christian Lavoie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Those are very old screenshots of apt (originally named deity). I have
no
> > > idea if they still resemble the current apt.
> >
> > More or less.
>
> Isn't apt a command-line tool though? If not, how does one run it with
> a GUI?
I made mysel
On 19 Apr 1999, Arcady Genkin wrote:
> Christian Lavoie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Those are very old screenshots of apt (originally named deity). I have no
> > > idea if they still resemble the current apt.
> >
> > More or less.
>
> Isn't apt a command-line tool though? If not, how do
Christian Lavoie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Those are very old screenshots of apt (originally named deity). I have no
> > idea if they still resemble the current apt.
>
> More or less.
Isn't apt a command-line tool though? If not, how does one run it with
a GUI?
--
Arcady Genkin
"I opene
> Those are very old screenshots of apt (originally named deity). I have no
> idea if they still resemble the current apt.
More or less. Gnome-apt Is similar, but have a right pane with more thorough
information about the currently selected package. Other than that, it's more
or less accurate.
Ch
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Chad A. Adlawan wrote:
> i see ppl are still fighting about debian and redhat and dselect and stuff
> ... anyway, would someone please try and check out
> http://www.debian.org/~jgg/apt/screenshots/ ??? i was roaming around a
> while ago when i saw them ...
> any idea w
"Chad A. Adlawan" wrote:
>
> hello everyone !
>
> i see ppl are still fighting about debian and redhat and dselect and stuff
> ... anyway, would someone please try and check out
> http://www.debian.org/~jgg/apt/screenshots/ ??? i was roaming around a
> while ago when i saw them ...
> any i
hello everyone !
i see ppl are still fighting about debian and redhat and dselect and stuff
... anyway, would someone please try and check out
http://www.debian.org/~jgg/apt/screenshots/ ??? i was roaming around a
while ago when i saw them ...
any idea what they are, their package names, et
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> *- On 19 Mar, Christopher J. Morrone wrote about "new apt"
> >
> > I installed the newest apt, and now the ftp method appears to be missing.
> > I'd rather not have to set up a web server just to use apt on
*- On 19 Mar, Christopher J. Morrone wrote about "new apt"
>
> I installed the newest apt, and now the ftp method appears to be missing.
> I'd rather not have to set up a web server just to use apt on the local
> machines...was that an oversight?
>
>
>
I installed the newest apt, and now the ftp method appears to be missing.
I'd rather not have to set up a web server just to use apt on the local
machines...was that an oversight?
I have compiled a version of APT for rex/bo. It was built on my 486 that
runs some strange rex/bo mix and should work on every system from 1.2
onwards.
For completeness I built up a matching version for hamm.
http://www.debian.org/~jgg/apt_0.0.pre9-0.1_i386.deb
http://www.debian.org/~jgg/apt_0.0
25 matches
Mail list logo
