On 5 May 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I also experimented with a veruy wide xterm, and doscovered
> that apt truncates the status line ;-( (I personally would not mind
> a wrapped line, or a long line, so I know what is going on rather
> than 'Waiting to coneect to blah.blah.blah.bla
Hi,
I also experimented with a veruy wide xterm, and doscovered
that apt truncates the status line ;-( (I personally would not mind
a wrapped line, or a long line, so I know what is going on rather
than 'Waiting to coneect to blah.blah.blah.blah
(122.122.122.122)'. Not that I am compl
On Tue, 5 May 1998, Joost Kooij wrote:
> I love the staus display too. It is a bit "jumpy" though, maybe you want
> to printf the numbers etc. in a fixed-size field. Oh, and an expected TOA
> per package would be a nice finishing touch (I'm getting carried away I
> guess ;-).
I was thinking of r
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Just installed apt_0.0.8. My impression is that it is significantly faster
> > than dpkg-ftp. Could be pyschological, though ;)
>
> No, it probably is. It advoids alot of the time consuming st
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Jules Bean wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just installed apt_0.0.8. My impression is that it is significantly faster
> than dpkg-ftp. Could be pyschological, though ;)
No, it probably is. It advoids alot of the time consuming steps, read the
status file faster, and with HTTP downloads f
--On Mon, May 4, 1998 3:39 pm +0100 "James Troup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Jules Bean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Should the first two have been "Replaces: "'ed by their successors?
>
> Package: timezones
> [...]
> Conflicts: timezone
> Replaces: timezone
>
> Package: locales
> [...
--On Mon, May 4, 1998 6:38 am -0700 "Joel Klecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:24 +0100 1998-05-04, Jules Bean wrote:
>>The following packages on my system are in bo but not in hamm:
>>
>>--- Obsolete and local packages present on system ---
>>- Obsolete/local Required packages
At 12:24 +0100 1998-05-04, Jules Bean wrote:
>The following packages on my system are in bo but not in hamm:
>
>--- Obsolete and local packages present on system ---
>- Obsolete/local Required packages -
>--- Obsolete/local Required packages in section base ---
> *** Req
Hi!
Just installed apt_0.0.8. My impression is that it is significantly faster
than dpkg-ftp. Could be pyschological, though ;)
The default apt sources.list doesn't include a reference to bo - and in any
case, since we're undergoing a symlink transition, I haven't been had bo in
my dselect for
9 matches
Mail list logo