On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:57:22AM +0900, Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
the load time or its overall performance? The time required to load
in all the state
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:41:25AM +0900, Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[0] alert readers will note that the caveat if the user waits for a
sufficient amount of time has to be added here; however, this is typically
much less than
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you say that normal operation is getting slower, do you mean just
the load time or its overall performance? The time required to load
in all the state files is a bit long, but once they're loaded the
program seems to run reasonably quickly to me.
Scripsit Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Though I love the aptitude interface and functionality, I've noticed
that on my home machine (not so fast, but not too bad with average
software), normal aptitude operation has been getting more and more
slothlike in recent times, to the point where I
Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[0] alert readers will note that the caveat if the user waits for a
sufficient amount of time has to be added here; however, this is typically
much less than one second per solution on my hardware.
Er, what _is_ your hardware anyway? Though I love
James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The aptitude in unstable and testing has a feature that lists suggested
ways to fix broken packages.
Unfortunately, the feature doesn't work very well.
Frequently I say aptitude remove XXX and the first several
suggestions that aptitude comes up with is
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 12:51:55AM +0100, Jiří Paleček [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:50:14 +0100, Linas Zvirblis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jiri Palecek wrote:
How does aptitude decide which one to choose? Shouldn't it
prefer to do something that won't break
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:50:14 +0100, Linas Zvirblis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jiri Palecek wrote:
How does aptitude decide which one to choose? Shouldn't it
prefer to do something that won't break other packages? Or should
it ask the user for help?
As for your problem, you must provide way
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 12:51:55AM +0100, Jiří Paleček wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:50:14 +0100, Linas Zvirblis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jiri Palecek wrote:
How does aptitude decide which one to choose? Shouldn't it
prefer to do something that won't break other packages? Or should
it ask
Hello,
I have a question on how aptitude decides which packages
to install to satisfy dependencies. I was installing vtk yesterday
and it depends on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1. Aptitude chose to install
xlibmesa-gl which in turn broke my x-window-system-core
metapackage. However, I was able to manually
Jiri Palecek wrote:
Hello,
I have a question on how aptitude decides which packages
to install to satisfy dependencies. I was installing vtk yesterday
and it depends on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1. Aptitude chose to install
xlibmesa-gl which in turn broke my x-window-system-core
metapackage. However,
Hello,
I have a question on how aptitude decides which packages
to install to satisfy dependencies. I was installing vtk yesterday
and it depends on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1. Aptitude chose to install
xlibmesa-gl which in turn broke my x-window-system-core
metapackage. However, I was able to manually
12 matches
Mail list logo
