---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> Date: 16 November 2012 11:31 Subject: Re: Bug#690157: ITP: aptitude-robot -- Automate package choice management To: "Elmar S. Heeb" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
On 10 October 2012 23:02, Elmar S. Heeb <[email protected]> wrote: > Framework to use aptitude for automated package management including > upgrade, installation, removal, hold, etc. Allows you to automate what > you would manually do with aptitude. See also pkgsync, cron-apt, apticron. I note that the configuration is an imperative style: an explicit list of (aptitude-specific) actions to take. I suspect that with a declarative config. (similar to pkgsync) there would be less unexpected side-effects. Clearly this program is simply meant as an automated interface to aptitude, although I think that most use cases would be covered by pkgsync if also supported list of packages to *not* upgrade. Any comments on the distinction, and the particular novelties of your approach? Any ideas how it could synchronize with the periodic apt script that performs update, clean, etc.? From aptitude-robot-session: > # yes "" forces the default answer to any configuration question > nice yes "" | /usr/sbin/aptitude-robot Have you considered something more explicit, such as: # aptitude -y -o DPkg::Options::=--force-confdef \ -o DPkg::Options::=--force-confold … Though these options currently have problems when a package fails to install or remove. From TODO: > * allow package+ and package&M (or &m) to be both specified for the > same package (currently the last one wins) I guess you would combine these internally to “+M”? Regards _______________________________________________ Aptitude-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
