On Mi, 15 ian 20, 23:11:38, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Starting with APT 2.0 (1.9.6 in experimental), the apt(8) binary will
> not try to interpret package names passed on the command-line as regular
> expressions or fnmatch() style patterns. Future versions of apt-get(8)
> and apt-cache(8) will
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:46:56PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:15:29PM +, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> > > No, did I give that impression? Sorry, search is going to stay
> > > with regex on (I think it's) package names and descriptions.
> >
> > Speaking of search, are the a
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:15:29PM +, Paul Wise wrote:
> > No, did I give that impression? Sorry, search is going to stay
> > with regex on (I think it's) package names and descriptions.
>
> Speaking of search, are the apt maintainers aware of apt-xapian-index
> and do you have any thoughts o
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:57 PM Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> No, did I give that impression? Sorry, search is going to stay
> with regex on (I think it's) package names and descriptions.
Speaking of search, are the apt maintainers aware of apt-xapian-index
and do you have any thoughts on it?
--
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:01:25AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Does it really make sense to deprecate regexps for apt-cache search?
> In that case, I think you're very unlikely to want a literal match.
No, did I give that impression? Sorry, search is going to stay
with regex on (I think it's) pack
Does it really make sense to deprecate regexps for apt-cache search?
In that case, I think you're very unlikely to want a literal match.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:11:38PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Starting with APT 2.0 (1.9.6 in experimental), the apt(8) binary will
> not try to interpret package names passed on the command-line as regular
> expressions or fnmatch() style patterns. Future versions of apt-get(8)
> and apt
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:49:55AM +, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:12 PM Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>
> > # The solution
>
> I would have thought the way to go would be to introduce explicit
> --raw --fnmatch --regex --pattern options for each different package
> name matchin
On 2020-01-15 at 17:11, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Starting with APT 2.0 (1.9.6 in experimental), the apt(8) binary will
> not try to interpret package names passed on the command-line as regular
> expressions or fnmatch() style patterns. Future versions of apt-get(8)
> and apt-cache(8) will fo
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:12 PM Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> # The solution
I would have thought the way to go would be to introduce explicit
--raw --fnmatch --regex --pattern options for each different package
name matching system.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Starting with APT 2.0 (1.9.6 in experimental), the apt(8) binary will
not try to interpret package names passed on the command-line as regular
expressions or fnmatch() style patterns. Future versions of apt-get(8)
and apt-cache(8) will follow that change, following the release of bullseye.
# The
11 matches
Mail list logo
