Your message dated Fri, 22 Mar 2019 21:58:09 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: release-notes: Perform upgrades with apt(8) instead of
apt-get(8)
has caused the Debian Bug report #865215,
regarding release-notes: Perform upgrades with apt(8) instead of apt-get(8)
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.)
--
865215: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865215
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release-notes
Severity: wishlist
Upgrades are really an interactive situation, and the apt tool should allow
upgrades to go
a bit more smoothly because it has the APT::Get::Upgrade-Allow-New default to
true, allowing
additional packages to be installed in the upgrade command.
It also has a nicer interactive output with a progress bar, which is immensely
nice when
performing large operations; and colorful output.
For the record, these are the options set by apt(8):
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Color", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cache::Show::Version", 2);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cache::AllVersions", false);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cache::ShowVirtuals", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cache::Search::Version", 2);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cache::ShowDependencyType", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cache::ShowVersion", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Get::Upgrade-Allow-New", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Cmd::Show-Update-Stats", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::DPkg::Progress-Fancy", true);
_config->CndSet("Binary::apt::APT::Keep-Downloaded-Packages", false);
(The binary::apt prefix allows overriding settings for a specific binary)
While we believe that apt(8) should not be used in scripts (its output be
parsed),
that's mostly a matter of it evolving normally, compared to apt-get which is
basically
running in a legacy mode to not break anything parsing its output.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (900, 'unstable'), (900, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'),
(500, 'buildd-unstable'), (98, 'experimental'), (1, 'experimental-debug')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.11.0-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
LANGUAGE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
| Ubuntu Core Developer |
When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to ('inline'). Thank you.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On 15-03-2019 22:27, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Control: tags -1 patch moreinfo
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:37:06 +0200 Julian Andres Klode <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Upgrades are really an interactive situation, and the apt tool should allow
>> upgrades to go
>> a bit more smoothly because it has the APT::Get::Upgrade-Allow-New default
>> to true, allowing
>> additional packages to be installed in the upgrade command.
>
> I have replaced all references to apt-get by apt and added a note in the
> section where we recommend apt. Can you please check that I didn't say
> anything stupid and that all cases are supported?
I went ahead and committed this:
https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team/release-notes/commit/b72eb99
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
