[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#459984: aptitude: adding bash completion

2016-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > close -1 Bug #459984 [aptitude] aptitude: adding bash completion Marked Bug as done -- 459984: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=459984 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#459984: aptitude: adding bash completion

2016-06-07 Thread Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
Control: close -1 Hi, 2008-01-10 15:57 Daniel Burrows: On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:39:41AM +0100, Mathieu GELI was heard to say: Package: aptitude Version: 0.4.10-1+b2 Severity: normal Tags: patch Completion seems to be required for some time. Here is a quick patch

Re: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#435829: aptitude-[create|run]-state-bundle commands very annoying

2016-06-07 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > >Given aptitude-create-state-bundle/aptitude-run-state-bundle appear to > >be only for debug purposes, could they be moved to /usr/lib/aptitude or > >/usr/share/aptitude so that when someone wants to do a debug state save, > >they just have to type the

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: aptitude-[create|run]-state-bundle commands very annoying

2016-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > tags -1 + wontfix Bug #435829 [aptitude] aptitude-[create|run]-state-bundle commands very annoying Added tag(s) wontfix. > close -1 Bug #435829 [aptitude] aptitude-[create|run]-state-bundle commands very annoying Marked Bug as done -- 435829:

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#435829: aptitude-[create|run]-state-bundle commands very annoying

2016-06-07 Thread Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
Control: tags -1 + wontfix Control: close -1 Hi Lennart, 2007-08-03 14:45 Lennart Sorensen: Subject: aptitude-[create|run]-state-bundle commands very annoying Package: aptitude Version: 0.4.6.1-1 Severity: wishlist The new commands added to aptitude aptitude-create-state-bundle and

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#826624: Bug#826624: aptitude can't be stopped with "Q" but only with ^T and going down there

2016-06-07 Thread Albrecht Herzog
On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:19:40PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi Albrecht, > Albrecht Herzog wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:49:53AM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > > > Hi Albert, > Sorry for misspelling of your name in my previous mail. Try to forget it ASAP :-D)) Or did you mix it with

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#826624: Bug#826624: aptitude can't be stopped with "Q" but only with ^T and going down there

2016-06-07 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi Albrecht, Albrecht Herzog wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:49:53AM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > > Hi Albert, Sorry for misspelling of your name in my previous mail. > > > I've got it when using "Q" > > Of course I did > > > Did you press "q" or "Q" at least once before and cancelled it

[Aptitude-devel] Processed: Re: Bug#826624: aptitude can't be stopped with "Q" but only with ^T and going down there

2016-06-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > tag -1 + moreinfo unreproducible Bug #826624 [aptitude] aptitude can't be stopped with "Q" but only with ^T and going down there Added tag(s) moreinfo and unreproducible. -- 826624: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=826624 Debian Bug Tracking

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#826624: Bug#826624: aptitude can't be stopped with "Q" but only with ^T and going down there

2016-06-07 Thread Axel Beckert
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo unreproducible Hi Albert, thanks for the bug report. Albrecht Herzog wrote: > Version: 0.6.11-1+b1 [...] >* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or > ineffective)? > > I've got it when using "Q" Did you press "q" or "Q" at least once

[Aptitude-devel] Bug#826624: aptitude can't be stopped with "Q" but only with ^T and going down there

2016-06-07 Thread Albrecht Herzog
Package: aptitude Version: 0.6.11-1+b1 Severity: minor Dear Maintainer, *** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate *** * What led up to the situation? Nothing special * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or ineffective)? I've