On 3/15/22 19:20, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
apt-cache stats
Thought it might prove of interest for others, too, with respect to
seeing real numbers about the amazing volume of packages all
interacting together under Debian's hood.
Thanks
I was not aware of this apt-cache option
an
On 3/15/22, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Cousin Stanley wrote:
>> Cousin Stanley wrote :
>> > The data is already on your system, so
>> > there's no transmission happening.
>>
>> I do not understand this.
> ...
>
>> Does the Debian package manager
>> really download package information
>> for al
Cousin Stanley wrote:
> Cousin Stanley wrote :
> > The data is already on your system, so
> > there's no transmission happening.
>
> I do not understand this.
...
> Does the Debian package manager
> really download package information
> for all ~59,000 avaiilabel packages
> in an
On 2022-03-15, Cousin Stanley wrote:
>
>> Whether or not you want to see it
>> is a different issue.
>
> I understand this.
>
>> The data is already on your system, so
>> there's no transmission happening.
>
> I do not understand this.
>
> I was under the impression that
> package info
On Tue, Mar 15 2022 at 08:28:41 AM, Cousin Stanley
wrote:
>
>
>
> I was under the impression that
> package information returned by
>
> apt-cache show some-package
>
> for packages that I have not installed
> would not be downloaded onto my system
> until I actually requested
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 08:28:41AM -0700, Cousin Stanley wrote:
> I was under the impression that
> package information returned by
>
> apt-cache show some-package
>
> for packages that I have not installed
> would not be downloaded onto my system
> until I actually requested
Cousin Stanley wrote :
>> What I don't understand is the necessity
>> to transmit a string of 3933 bytes
>> for 87 golang packages for example
>> when a link to the same would suffice
>> for those that actually require it.
Dan Ritter wrote :
> The package manager needs it.
I understand this.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 06:36:52AM -0700, Cousin Stanley wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > No, it seems you haven't understood.
> >
>
> I assure you that I do understand the need
> for access to the Built-Using list.
>
> What I don't understand is the necessity
> to transmit
Cousin Stanley wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > No, it seems you haven't understood.
> >
>
> I assure you that I do understand the need
> for access to the Built-Using list.
>
> What I don't understand is the necessity
> to transmit a string of 3933 bytes
> for 87 golang
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> No, it seems you haven't understood.
>
I assure you that I do understand the need
for access to the Built-Using list.
What I don't understand is the necessity
to transmit a string of 3933 bytes
for 87 golang packages for example
when a link to the sa
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:23:02PM -0700, Cousin Stanley wrote:
> Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> >
> > Not having Built-Using is just like not having dependencies.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> I can understand the need for the Built-Using list
> for the developers that need it.
No, it
Cousin Stanley wrote:
> Reading this newsgroup earlier today
> someone mentioned the hugo package
> for static site generation.
>
> I was curious about the package
> so I tried
>
> $ apt-cache show hugo
...
i have been building hugo on my Debian system for
quite a while
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:37:30PM -0700, Cousin Stanley wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > How about:
> >
> > $ apt-cache show hugo | grep -v '^Built-Using:'
> >
> > which you could wrap into a function.
> >
>
> I don't mind the Built-Using list at all
> for reasonable sized lists and I
David Wright wrote:
> How about:
>
> $ apt-cache show hugo | grep -v '^Built-Using:'
>
> which you could wrap into a function.
>
I don't mind the Built-Using list at all
for reasonable sized lists and I wouldn't
care to remove it altogether.
I can use your suggestion to remove it
Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Not having Built-Using is just like not having dependencies.
Thanks for the explanation.
I can understand the need for the Built-Using list
for the developers that need it.
In cases such as that for the l o n g list
returned for golang built packages like
On Mon 14 Mar 2022 at 16:33:42 (-0700), Cousin Stanley wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > So this information is needed for the developers and packagers,
> > but I suppose you could argue that it is information overload
> > for the casual user of "apt show".
>
> It seems to be information
Andy Smith wrote:
>
> So this information is needed for the developers and packagers,
> but I suppose you could argue that it is information overload
> for the casual user of "apt show".
It seems to be information overload for me pesonally.
Perhaps a link to the relevant golang list
Cousin Stanley wrote:
> Reading this newsgroup earlier today
> someone mentioned the hugo package
> for static site generation.
>
> I was curious about the package
> so I tried
>
> $ apt-cache show hugo
>
> The usual package information was returned
> along with, in my
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:53:21PM -0700, Cousin Stanley wrote:
> $ apt-cache show hugo
>
> The usual package information was returned
> along with, in my opinion, an unsightly mess
> entailing a long string of 88 entries
> naming individual golang packages
> following Buil
Reading this newsgroup earlier today
someone mentioned the hugo package
for static site generation.
I was curious about the package
so I tried
$ apt-cache show hugo
The usual package information was returned
along with, in my opinion, an unsightly mess
entailing a lon
20 matches
Mail list logo
