Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
2016-09-17 18:21 GMT+02:00 Keshav Kini : >> >> But anyway, things like these are possible for years with themes, which >> are broken also for many years (if they ever worked), and nobody >> complained about the broken support for years so I tend to think that >> people don't care too much about the

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi, Keshav Kini wrote: > One way to brighten the background color without using the bold > attribute would be to wait for libncurses in Debian to switch over to > the ncurses 6.0 ABI, which provides 256-color support. Then one could > freely choose a slightly lighter blue color as the background

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Keshav Kini
On 09/17/2016 09:08 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > Dunno, maybe your experience is different or there are good examples, > but from the Debian "insiders" side communicating with users, I think > that marking the upgrades differently (specially bold/non-bold) as if > some kind of upgrade

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Keshav Kini
On 09/17/2016 08:20 AM, Axel Beckert wrote: > Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: >> Currently, the whole line is bold or normal depending if the package is >> installed or not. > > Ok. The screenshot only showed packages already marked for upgrade. Of > course, there can't be non-installed packa

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
2016-09-17 17:20 Axel Beckert: More in general, I don't think that the distinction between upstream upgrades and non-upstream upgrades is very interesting, and it can be misleading in some cases: - Upgrading to libssl_1.0.0-2 from -1 might be much more urgent / recommendable / whatever than upg

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Axel Beckert
Control: tag -1 - patch. Hi, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > >Will probably have to try it so see how it feels, but in general I > >like the idea. So thanks for having already included a patch! > > Thanks for the suggestion and the patch. > > My view on this request is not so positive, t

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-17 Thread Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
Hi, 2016-09-16 13:47 Axel Beckert: Hi Keshav, Keshav Kini wrote: When upgrading packages, aptitude users might like to know whether each upgrade represents a newer upstream version of the package, or is merely a Debian-specific change. This can be determined by comparing the current and candi

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-16 Thread Keshav Kini
On 09/16/2016 04:47 AM, Axel Beckert wrote: > Interesting ideas (both, separating upstream from packaging changes as > well as using the bold attribute for highlighting). > > Will probably have to try it so see how it feels, but in general I > like the idea. So thanks for having already included a

Bug#837971: [Aptitude-devel] Bug#837971: aptitude: [PATCH] Distinguish Debian-specific and upstream upgrades

2016-09-16 Thread Axel Beckert
Hi Keshav, Keshav Kini wrote: > When upgrading packages, aptitude users might like to know whether each > upgrade represents a newer upstream version of the package, or is merely > a Debian-specific change. This can be determined by comparing the > current and candidate versions in the rightmost