On 27 May 2012 14:49, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote:
Hello Daniel and other aptitude devels;
I'm fine with helping to deal with these localization and English
usage bugs reports, but I need help in properly handling git commits
to avoid screwing your workflow.
When a
Hello Beatrice
Thank you (and the Italian team) for your large efforts in translating
the document :-)
We will definitely include this with the next release.
I did translate safety-cost-level-diagram, though not with a vector
image program because I don't know how to use one; so I used Gimp.
package aptitude
merge 568876 674826
severity 674826 normal
retitle 568876 aptitude: problem resolver ignores Purge-Unused
thanks
On 28 May 2012 10:02, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Even though I have set
APT::Cache::AllVersions false;
APT::Clean-Installed false;
APT::Get::Purge true;
[This
tags 674045 + pending
thanks
On 23 May 2012 12:59, Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote:
Quoting Andreas Kloeckner (inf...@tiker.net):
The German translation of aptitude, when encountering broken packages,
shows (the German equivalent of) #Broken in the header, but does not
show a
On 21 May 2012 23:51, T Elcor tel...@yahoo.com wrote:
As for other people having the same (or similar looking) problem,
please see the following threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.user/browse_thread/thread/1042f6677c741126#
On 20 May 2012 18:03, T Elcor tel...@yahoo.com wrote:
If I remove the security line from sources:
# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy non-free
I could not reproduce this problem even using these sources.
On 19 May 2012 18:48, T Elcor tel...@yahoo.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.7-1
At what version is libapt-pkg4.12 on this system?
Fetched 3 B in 1s (2 B/s)
W: Failed to fetch
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/dists/wheezy/main/i18n/Translation-en: 404
Not Found [IP:
On 20 May 2012 17:23, T Elcor tel...@yahoo.com wrote:
I usually use only aptitude. Apt was used only for the purpose of
identifying the problem. It's my understanding that other people
are having this (or similar looking) problem as well.
The apt-get output you provided was using a different
On 16 May 2012 04:09, Paul Menzel pm.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
on Saturday, APT was upgraded from 0.9.2 to 0.9.3. But I saw a segfault
from rred just today.
/var/log/syslog:May 15 4:30:26 hostname kernel: [11212.643812]
rred[27456]: segfault at 822884c ip b73cad52 sp bfdf6c98
On 16 May 2012 22:46, Kitty PC kittyin...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry if this should be a new bug I am unsure, I am seeing aptitude hold
back version 0.9.3 of apt due to it having a marked conflict with
python-gtk
Conflicts: python-apt ( 0.7.93.2~). This prevents me from updating to
fix
this bug
reassign 555632 libapt-pkg4.10,libapt-pkg4.12
affects 555632 = aptitude apt-utils
retitle 555632 background tasks stop on SIGTTIN, SIGTTOU
thanks
Running something like
aptitude --assume-yes do-something aptitude.log 21
will hang after downloading packages.
Just bringing aptitude in the
Hi
E: Write error - write (11: Resource temporarily unavailable)
E: Method http has died unexpectedly!
If I set LANG to C, the error does not occur any more.
This was caused by a regression in libapt-pkg4.12 that is fixed in
0.9.3. The next release of aptitude will require at least that
Package: libapt-pkg4.12
Severity: wishlist
Hello
I notice today that deblistparser.cc(ParseDepends) has some internal
logic for matching against architecture specification strings. This
may be useful to other functions, not to mention frontends (searching
by arch wildcard -- nice :-)) if it
On 11 May 2012 17:46, Holger Wansing li...@wansing-online.de wrote:
Hi,
attached you get the updated german program translation
for aptitude, version 0.6.6-1.
Please include it in your package.
Thanks for your i18n issues.
Hello
Thanks for your updated translation, and nice to see it
Hello
On 11 May 2012 18:57, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Is it common in your locale to have periods there?
Definitely. It's likely the reason why I would expect to have periods there
in English, too. :-)
In english locale many programs intentionally do not have those,
In German
Hello
On 11 May 2012 18:57, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Is it common in your locale to have periods there?
Definitely. It's likely the reason why I would expect to have periods there
in English, too. :-)
In english locale many programs intentionally do not have those,
In German
On 11 May 2012 19:47, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Even for error messages?
Why not? I've never heard of any orthography exception for error
messages. (Until now for English. :-)
Not sure why but I see many programs do it, and in log files also.
It may have to do with errors being
tags 588032 + wontfix
thanks
Hello
Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback to aptitude.
I have some comments about your suggestion:
After I reverted to using grouping by default (instead of a flat list,
which seemed more practical at the time) I got a bit annoyed by the
grouping by
Hi -devel
Just had a look at this:
One gets this internal error, (with bad grammar (locate file))
# aptitude reinstall asterisk
The following packages will be REINSTALLED:
asterisk
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 reinstalled, 0 to remove
and 18 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of
Hi
Recently upgrading both package, I find 'aptitude update' seem to hang up.
It seems that there are some problems of communication between
aptitude and /usr/lib/apt/method/http. Using strace command,both aptitude and
/usr/lib/apt/method/http stuck at select(1,[0],NULL,NULL...). They seems
On 6 May 2012 17:57, YOSHINO Yoshihito yy.y.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
By bisecting changes in the bzr repository I found this problem is
caused by a commit revision 2129.55.33 use a static FileFd::Write
overload to reduce duplication of write()-retry code.
More specifically, replacing the loop
user multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
usertags 672340 + multiarch
severity 672340 important
thanks
On 10 May 2012 18:40, Ralf Jung p...@ralfj.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.7-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
the dependency solver of aptitude always wants to uninstall
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: important
Hi mentors
Looking for a sponsor for my package distcc:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/distcc
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/distcc/distcc_3.1-5.dsc
It has not been actively maintained for some time and the maintainer
has
Daniel Franganillo dfrangani...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
at work we have quite a few debian stable servers updated daily with
this script via cron jobs:
[snip]
The line:
yes Y | aptitude -d safe-upgrade /dev/null
sometimes keeps running forever, so we have to kill the process, and
other
On 4 May 2012 11:48, Witold Baryluk bary...@smp.if.uj.edu.pl wrote:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
aptitude : Depends: libapt-pkg4.10 but it is not installable
Depends: libept1 but it is not going to be installed
Recommends: aptitude-doc-en but it is not
On 4 May 2012 03:18, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
Is there an ETA for an upload containing the fix? aptitude is currently
part of the apt/libept transitions and the mipsel build is failing due
to this bug.
The next couple of days.
I was delaying to fix some other, quite
On 2 May 2012 06:05, Marc Haber mh+debian-b...@zugschlus.de wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 06:27:03PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
configure: error: Can't figure out where Google Mock lives; either
install the google-mock package or place the library in the link path
Fix already committed
On 29 April 2012 21:28, Salvatore Bonaccorso car...@debian.org wrote:
tags 666383 + patch
thanks
Hi
This FTBFS seems to be build-arch target related. I have prepared a
NMU for distcc (versioned as 3.1-4.3) but not yet uploaded. Patch is
attached.
Regards,
Salvatore
Hello
Thanks for
forcemerge 629266 670822
thanks
On 29 April 2012 19:35, Marc Haber mh+debian-b...@zugschlus.de wrote:
$ sudo aptitude dist-upgrade -d
The following packages will be upgraded:
kbd libnewt0.52 whiptail
The following packages are RECOMMENDED but will NOT be installed:
libfribidi0
3 packages
On 29 April 2012 11:31, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Ubuntu saw this bug when changing to updated apt (= 0.8.16~exp5) and
it appeared here when compiled with 0.9.0 so I believe this is caused
by a change in apt
Ignore that remark. I was actually thinking of #669569 about
On 28 April 2012 16:07, Guanhao Yin yinguan...@gmail.com wrote:
I tried the latest version in the above git repository, with or without
setting CXXFLAGS to -g -O0. I'm afraid the problem still exits, with
zh_CN.utf8.
Thanks. I also rebuilt apt with those flags.
I will keep looking at it.
Package: debtags
Severity: wishlist
Hello
Aptitude previously included a rather unsightly kludge to call
'debtags update --local' after updating the packages list. As of
0.6.7 this will be removed.
Attached is an apt.conf.d fragment equivalent to the old behaviour but
much more elegant.
On 29 April 2012 03:51, Wolodja Wentland deb...@babilen5.org wrote:
Hello,
thank you Daniel for looking into this. I'd like to start by providing a few
more details as this might help to triage this bug. The bug is related to
parsing/handling of aptitude-defaults and manifests itself when
On 29 March 2012 06:53, Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe
mario.ho...@tu-ilmenau.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.6-1
Hello,
thanks for fixing #476399. Unfortunately there seems to be a semantic
difference between apt and aptitude: While apt releases all locks before
running
retitle 479870 apt updates should update dpkg/available
reassign 479870 apt,dctrl-tools
thanks
/var/lib/dpkg/available is not created|updated complete with
'aptitude update', like 'dselect update' does.
If anything, all apt interfaces should do this and dctrl-tools
provides the means.
On 19 April 2012 09:59, Guanhao Yin yinguan...@gmail.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.6-1+b1
Severity: important
In the curses interface, when I try to update the package list, I get
an error message saying:
E: 写出错 - write (11: 资源暂时不可用)
E: Method http has died unexpectedly!
Source: aptitude
Version: 0.6.6-1
Severity: serious
Tags: pending
configure: error: Can't figure out where Google Mock lives; either
install the google-mock package or place the library in the link path
Fix already committed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
reassign 669631 libapt-pkg4.12 0.9.1
retitle 669631 Hash Sum mismatch on local repo Packages
thanks
On 20 April 2012 23:51, Gilles Crevecoeur gilles.creveco...@gmail.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.6-1+b1
Severity: important
Hi,
I have this message only with my local repositry on
On 24 April 2012 16:55, Vladimir Stavrinov vstavri...@gmail.com wrote:
the command
aptitude -d upgrade
hang up for an hour or more and then issue the error in subject. Downgrade to
0.6.6-1 solve this problem
Did the program hang after downloading the package files?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On 24 April 2012 17:20, Vladimir Stavrinov vstavri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 05:08:39PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Did the program hang after downloading the package files?
Yes, here is examples of output:
Fetched 114 MB in 2min 38s (718 kB/s)
E: Failed to write
On 24 April 2012 18:12, Vladimir Stavrinov vstavri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 05:42:56PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
that will be released shortly. In the meantime could you try the
patch there and report if it solves this problem also?
After downloading source package
On 24 April 2012 21:40, Vladimir Stavrinov vstavri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:10:11PM +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
The file config.log will contain details of why the test failed.
The only relevant message I can see is /usr/bin/ld: cannot find
-lgtest, but both packages
Hello
On 16 April 2012 11:09, dE . de.tec...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no specific pattern in which this happens, an aptitude run
just for searching a package may mark packages manually installed.
How did you determine that 'aptitude search' changed the state, rather
than 'update' or 'upgrade'?
On 16 April 2012 21:41, Michal Suchanek michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz wrote:
If you skip through the available solutions is this eventually in the
list? Hinting the resolver may get you there faster.
No, this can be resolved only manually afaict.
I have no idea how to hint the resolver.
This
fc33717e721954088ed14913af5002f0ef9d2d1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:46:23 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Avoid dpkg and infinite loop in download-only mode
* src/generic/apt/download_install_manager.cc:
When in download_only mode:
- report download errors;
- post_dpkg save
retitle 668875 aptitude: [INTL:de] typos in help
thanks
On 15 April 2012 16:59, Torbjörn Klatt opensou...@torbjoern-klatt.de wrote:
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
typed `aptitude help` in the terminal
* What was the outcome of this
On 14 April 2012 16:17, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2012-04-14 12:30:28 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
A warning is displayed on the first change with instructions on
becoming root, though this can be disabled.
What is the value of 'aptitude::Suppress-Read-Only-Warning' in your
On 15 April 2012 00:38, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2012-04-14 22:08:20 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
This is set if you previously selected Never display this message
again when presented with the warning.
I don't think I had ever selected this (on two machines, it would
2012/4/13 Raúl Sánchez rasas...@gmail.com:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.6-1
Severity: normal
Hello:
I've lately experienced a 100% cpu load by aptitude. I wouldn't be able to
point a specific cause, but it seems the conflict resolver is involved.
Does the program eventually continue,
On 12 April 2012 20:29, Michal Suchanek michal.sucha...@ruk.cuni.cz wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.6-1
Severity: important
Hello,
I tried aptitude update ; aptitude safe-upgrade
aptitude said no solution exists and --full-resolver might help.
--full-resolver offers to remove tons
Dear Maintainer,
I can’t remember what led up to this situation, but I have put up with
it for a long time. I know it’s a problem because it doesn’t do it on
my other Debian system. I’m using testing, so I have updates everyday.
When I safe-upgrade, it usually misses a few packages, and then
Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.4-1
Severity: normal
When I run aptitude as non-root, do changes (such as marking
packages as forbidden) and quit aptitude, these changes are
silently lost.
Aptitude should propose to become root, either at the first
On 9 April 2012 12:08, Brendan Byrd sineswi...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely this is a simple matter of
merging code from apt-get into aptitude, right?
Such duplication has been a source of problems with aptitude.
Ignoring that 'apt-get source' is quite usable, if other frontends are
to use this
On 10 April 2012 16:46, Brendan Byrd sineswi...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no point in
having two development teams working on essentially the same thing.
The development of apt and aptitude does not significantly overlap.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
severity 664576 normal
merge 587671 664576
thanks
On 19 March 2012 07:40, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
I wanted to make a script that would not bother me if there was noting
to do. And if there was, then prompt as usual.
I have got what I want -- but not without a price:
# aptitude purge
merge 595888 665661
thanks
On 25 March 2012 15:19, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Thanks. Anyway, we are used to aptitude saying 1 to install 4 to remove,
etc. so it should say 1 to forbid always too if forbidding.
I think that forbidden packages are counted as N not upgraded.
--
To
On 29 March 2012 13:05, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
DH == Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com writes:
DH I think that forbidden packages are counted as N not upgraded.
No fair. That is just a side effect. And also lumps them in with other
different cases. I.e., they still should be listed
On 27 March 2012 05:51, William r...@libertysurf.fr wrote:
Thanks a lot for your answer. The given command gives 1225 packages :
$ aptitude search '~i!~M'
In my case, such a list is clearly not manageable! The ubuntu command :
aptitude search
On 27 March 2012 16:07, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
The old style tasks have been phased out and replaced by meta-packages
with names beginning with task-. As a result of this it is now
possible to have the dependencies of a task marked as automatically
installed and thus most
On 27 March 2012 06:25, William r...@libertysurf.fr wrote:
Hello,
and many thanks for this very interesting comment.
Hi
My answers will be to-the-point so as to be clear. There a couple of
interesting suggestions here but others which can not be used.
Clearly, that would be
interesting
On 28 March 2012 06:18, William r...@libertysurf.fr wrote:
Hi,
thanks for your answer.
$ : non root prompt
# : root prompt
- Problem using add-user-tag :
the following command does not complain (in non root prompt). I have no
special multi-arch system (AFAIK) :
$ aptitude add-user-tag
On 26 March 2012 20:38, r...@libertysurf.fr wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version:0.6.3-3.2
Hello,
I think aptitude lacks a feature : being able to tell the user what he has
installed already (in order to let him do clean up). I think of a feature such
as in windows (control panel / add or
merge 595888 638841 648687
thanks
On 25 March 2012 09:40, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
You really should have some feedback to the user for forbid-version, so
he can tell that you are not just doing some other unrelated task.
Hi
As is quite common for Unix programs, if the command does not
user multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
usertags 655590 + multiarch
tags 655590 + patch
--
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:53 David Kalnischkies
kalnischkies+deb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 17:01, Vincent Danjean vdanj...@debian.org wrote:
I'm trying to use apt-get in a multiarch
merge 661744 665212
thanks
On 23 March 2012 00:02, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
Severity: normal
User: debian-d...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
Putting an upgradeable package on hold, quitting aptitude with q and
starting it again lets
On 21 March 2012 20:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
So more than 5 years ago, one user reports that aptitude crashes when
doing anything (like install foo) while parsing data, followed by a
very detailed bug report, and concludes that a file is perhaps
reopen 312920
thanks
On 21 March 2012 18:36, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
I put the emphasis on the title of the bug report, writes when
nothing should be written. The comment about taking long to execute
for me is secondary, a subproduct, a side-comment.
Bastian Venthur expires-2...@venthur.de wrote:
Is it possible to include a small script in the distcc package, that
allows the user to turn distributed compiling easily on and off?
My solution would be something like:
distcc-off:
removes all symlinks in /usr/local/bin which point to distcc
The following command takes a long time to execute. It should read
very little, compute very little, and write absolutely nothing.
# aptitude install some-package-that-does-not-exist
Reading Package Lists... Done
-- Forwarded message --
From: Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
-- Forwarded message --
From: LimCore DebianBug debian...@limcore.pl
To: sub...@bugs.debian.org
aptitude crashes when doing anything (like install foo) while parsing data.
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread -1212254528 (LWP 21019)]
As a further note:
Kai Wasserbäch deb...@carbon-project.org wrote:
I saw code (thanks to GSoC) appear in aptitude's Git repository, but it
doesn't
seem to get build so far. What is the status of that code? What is missing?
Maybe I can help out.
Run configure with the --enable-qt option.
tags 325015 + wontfix
thanks
Urgency is mainly intended for the archive maintainence software. It
is not presently made available to APT, only in the .changes file.
The urgency affects how quickly a package will be considered for
inclusion into the testing distribution and gives an indication
tags 629995 + confirmed
thanks
# aptitude search -F%p ~aremove | tee marked
debian-el
dict
dpkg-dev-el
emacs
emacs-goodies-el
libmaa3
librecode0
recode
# aptitude keep ~aremove
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 474 not
On 17 March 2012 22:29, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn
cristian.ionescu-idbo...@axis.com wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
- manually invoking distccd as non-root also works.
Was it the distccd non-root user you had in mind, or another?
Hi
I mean that any user can run /usr/bin
tags 497539 + pending
thanks
commit f8191add22b781b4453b95d2c02c890214f1f57a
Author: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Mar 16 16:56:35 2012 +0800
Apply patch from Ubuntu to build -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 errors
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
severity 663910 normal
thanks
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dropping severity, package is quite usable:
- problem only affects libpam-tmpdir users, mainly at the time of install;
- daemon starts fine on reboot;
- manually invoking distccd as non-root also works.
On 17 March 2012 05:54, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Hi David.
On Fri, 2012-03-16 at 18:54 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
I would recommend to avoid the practice of rebuilding with the same version-
number through. It's harder to find out if its an official or a
tags 603862 + pending
thanks
commit 26b1b0ef9dced41811e2e1e8b297a26f110aa430
Author: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Date: Thu Mar 15 14:11:19 2012 +0800
Fix '?action(upgrade)' and others
Searches for an action of 'reinstall', 'upgrade', 'downgrade' were
matching incorrectly
Hello Russian team
Thanks to Yuri for his quick response last time.
Aleksej has identified a couple more translations which may need improvement.
Would you please take a look at these also.
Regards
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aleksej Serdjukov deletesoftw...@yandex.ru
On 16 March 2012 01:43, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn
cristian.ionescu-idbo...@axis.com wrote:
Yeah, there was something there [/var/log/distccd.log]:
distccd[20344] (main) ERROR: failed to chdir to /tmp/user/0: Permission denied
The location is read from TMPDIR.
That seems to be related to the
tags 580308 + patch
thanks
The attached patch fixes this issue by moving python modules to a private path.
The modules are for the distcc-pump include server. This includes a
compiled extension (.so). To keep things simple all the modules are
installed to /usr/lib/distcc-pump.
Rational for
NMU on mentors.d.n has been updated to include the fix for #638258 also.
http://mentors.debian.net/package/distcc
* Move distcc-pump python modules to private path (/usr/lib/distcc-pump)
- 04_fix_pumps_include_server_path.dpatch: update for private path,
removes hardcoded python
On 10 March 2012 18:00, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-03-10 04:17 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
However, the output of the programs does differ. Aptitude
safe-upgrade reports that it can not resolve the dependency problems
(correct), and that the user should try using the full
On 10 March 2012 22:17, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-03-10 14:53 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Your original report only had the two
out-of-sync gcc packages available, which, of course, can not be
upgraded.
Right, because I made the mistake of running
aptitude --full
Effectively the situation involves these factors:
- distcc-pump ships python modules (.py) and extensions (.so)
- the extensions are only compiled for one python version
- installed using distutils
- distcc-pump is a bash script which calls the modules directly
('python
Package: libept1.4.12
Version: 1.0.6~exp1
Hi
---
libept (1.0.6~exp1) experimental; urgency=low
* build against libapt in experimental
---
This has only been effective for alpha, amd64 binaries:
$ dpkg-deb -f libept1.4.12_1.0.6~exp1_amd64.deb depends
libapt-pkg4.12 (= 0.8.16~exp12), libc6 (=
On 10 March 2012 00:39, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
You can record the state using aptitude-create-state-bundle.
Of course, silly me.
That will contain enough info to reproduce it at a later date.
Hopefully it does, the experience in #655483 was not so great. Would
you be
On 10 March 2012 00:42, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Would be
interesting to see what apt-get does if the dist-upgrade does not
require removing essential packages.
I have included output from apt-get in this situation.[1]
It seems that both programs do the same thing here:
1. mark
[added deity@ as it concerns APT protocols]
On 9 March 2012 01:59, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:50:44 +0800 Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 8 March 2012 10:49, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Apt-listbugs could try harder to avoid directly reading
On 9 March 2012 03:09, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago there was a situation where libgcc1:amd64 was at a newer
version than libgcc1:i386, and aptitude was unable to
On 9 March 2012 11:16, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 March 2012 03:09, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
User: multiarch-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Usertags: multiarch
A few days ago there was a situation where libgcc1:amd64
On 5 March 2012 01:16, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
IMHO the 99% solution to this problem is to prevent this condition in the
first place: if installing a (single) package FOO, any solution which does
not in fact install FOO is by definition wrong and should be blocked
before
On 8 March 2012 07:01, Francesco Poli invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 22:31:18 +0100 Nicolas DEGAND wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 21:11:43 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:17:19 +0100 Nicolas DEGAND wrote:
I try to upgrade packages with aptitude. When
On 8 March 2012 10:49, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Apt-listbugs could try harder to avoid directly reading from /dev/tty
Of course, here I am refering to reading from stdin instead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
merge 568876 663019
thanks
Hi
Thanks for another detailed report. Enough information to see what is
going on and what the issues are.
I have found the two points you mention already in the BTS. Merging
this report with the first of those as it appears you consider that
the main issue.
No ETA
On 29 February 2012 16:36, Matthias Urlichs matth...@urlichs.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
Severity: minor
On a long-not-updated system where installation requires a Perl update:
$ aptitude install smurf-kde
## my metapackage which simply depends on a bunch of KDE stuff
[
On 29 February 2012 22:05, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.5-1
Severity: minor
We see one package is left behind:
# aptitude install gdb
The following NEW packages will be installed:
gdb gdbserver{a} (D: gdb) (for gdb)
0 packages upgraded, 2 newly installed,
the CLI and curses
interface.
The issue with the new state is fixed in the commit below.
#661744 aptitude forbid-version doesn't work in multiarch setup
This one is also solved in that same commit, to be release shortly:
commit e823140847cff74fe97c0a95c727d1a0fe883750
Author: Daniel Hartwig mand
On 2 March 2012 20:47, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
DH == Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com writes:
DH Is gdbserver removed if you run just:
DH # aptitude install
As a matter of fact yes.
Ok. I think this has been reported before.
Some quirks that the autoremove system has in some situations
retitle 661188 aptitude: recursive remove (like pacman -Rs)
severity 661188 wishlist
thanks
2012/2/29 Georgiy Treyvus georgiytrey...@gmail.com:
@Daniel:
The way Arch does it is actually pretty elegant.
Autoremoving is cool don't get me wrong but there are times that you just
want a
401 - 500 of 572 matches
Mail list logo
