Your message dated Sat, 27 Feb 2016 17:25:37 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: aptitude: %r usefulness limited, would need to take
packages to be installed into account
has caused the Debian Bug report #474256,
regarding aptitude: %r misses revdeps for packages being upgraded
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
474256: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=474256
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11.1-1
Severity: normal
The preview today shows the following stats (my format has "%p %r %t"):
--\ Packages which are recommended by other packages (5)
p bzrtools 0 unstable,testing <none> 1.3.0-2
p gnokii-cli 0 unstable,testing <none> 0.6.24.dfs
p pcscd 0 unstable,testing <none> 1.4.100-2
p smplayer-themes 0 unstable,testing <none> 0.1.15.dfs
p xgnokii 0 unstable,testing <none> 0.6.24.dfs
If for example I request the revdeps for bzrtools, I get the
following, which should IMHO be reflected in the count:
p --\ bzrtools 0 unstable,testing <none> 1.3.0-2
--\ Recommends (2)
id bzr 1.1~rc1-1 3 -14.1MB
pi bzr 1.3-1 3 unstable,testing +14.3MB
--\ Depends (2)
p bzr-builddeb 0.92 0 testing
p bzr-builddeb 0.93 0 unstable
-- Package-specific info:
Terminal: screen
$DISPLAY is set.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (90, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.23.8-smp (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=french (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6. 0.7.11 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii libc6 2.7-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libcwidget3 0.5.9-1 high-level terminal interface libr
ii libept0 0.5.17 High-level library for managing De
ii libgcc1 1:4.3.0-1 GCC support library
ii libncursesw5 5.6+20080308-1 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libsigc++-2.0-0c2a 2.0.18-2 type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii libstdc++6 4.3.0-1 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii libxapian15 1.0.5-1 Search engine library
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-11 compression library - runtime
Versions of packages aptitude recommends:
pn aptitude-doc-en | aptitude-do <none> (no description available)
ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.1.1-2 parse Debian changelogs and output
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tags 473594 + wontfix
tags 474256 + wontfix
stop
Hi,
2008-03-31 15:43 Yann Dirson:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.11-3+b1
Severity: wishlist
When a package to be installed automatically is shown with %r==0, one
easily tracks the issue to %r only counting *installed* packages, and
know that the info is not valid. But when %r!=0, the info may easily
be mis-interpreted.
Shouldn't %r take into account packages to be installed/removed,
eg. by additionnaly displaying the numbers corresponding to the
requested state when they do not match ?
The documentation says about %r: "Outputs the approximate number of
installed packages which depend upon the package", and I guess that
/approximate/ is for a reason, because the count depends on what people
consider worth counting.
See #320095 for some examples on how deciding what to count gets
complicated. This request complicates it further by not only having
into account the current state of the system, but adding the extra layer
of pending actions.
So I don't think that we should change the current meaning of
"installed" and "approximate", or that people should rely on this number
for any meaningful purpose.
For more than a decade, this count was ignoring dependencies on virtual
packages provided by the current package (#320089), with only one person
realising and nobody seconding. So I don't think that it's a very used
feature, and I to be honest I also cannot think of good reasons of why
would be used.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
