Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Vogt wrote:
unattended-upgrades comes with a default configuration that will only
apply security updates (but it can be configured in any way people
want) and it will do some careful checking to not upgrade packages
that require manual
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
As already said elsewhere in this thread, that's exactly the point of
unattended-upgrades: It detects if manual user interaction is
required, and will not upgrade the package in this case.
There might be some manual steps involved. For example,
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:51:15PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote:
Michael Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- automatic removal of unused dependencies moved into libapt so that
applications like synaptic, python-apt, update-manger etc directly
benefit from it. A HUGE
Michael Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Friends,
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
It will break the ABI, so all packages that depend on libapt will need
Michael Vogt wrote:
unattended-upgrades comes with a default configuration that will only
apply security updates (but it can be configured in any way people
want) and it will do some careful checking to not upgrade packages
that require manual intervention bia conffile prompts. It will also
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:16:49PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On 6/10/07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because they're not the latest files. The latest output form
the DDTP project is here:
http://ddtp.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/
There have been
I am definitely a GUI person (aptitude is the last non-GUI program
with a GUI available that I still use), but I still prefer aptitude to
any other. I was under the impression that most others did too, is it
not the recommended Debian way?.
Yes (but that's a reported bug, #418455)
--
To
Michael Vogt wrote:
This is currently turned off because of the concerns raised. its a
matter of changing the default of APT::Install-Recommends to true.
I want to turn it on by default in the near future, but with a
reasonable warning time for the transition.
Here are the places we'll
upgrade path for two releases now, with its Recommends: handling being a
major reason for this. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least *some*
users switching to it as a result.
Developer users probably. The ones that resist are more non-developer
users. I'm constantly being annoyed at
Michael Vogt schrieb am Montag, den 11. Juni 2007:
Hi,
*snip*
[..]
- automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
[..]
This is currently turned off because of the concerns raised. its a
matter of changing the default of APT::Install-Recommends to true.
I want to turn it on by
Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another widely misunderstood feature of aptitude is the ability to
handle packages installed as dependencies. It's pretty often badly
understoood and leads to horror stories floating around of aptitude
wants to remove half of the system while the
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
I want to turn it on by default in the near future, but with a
reasonable warning time for the transition.
Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
installed by default. I consider this really a dangerous option
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
Recommends *are* to be installed by default, unless you specifically tell
the tool not to. This is the whole point, one that has been broken for a
few *years* now and has
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Really? I'd have guessed that most people used aptitude. I can't imagine
anyone preferring synaptic to aptitude. Of course, I don't really
understand why anyone prefers [any graphical MUA] to mutt, or [any
graphical newsreader]
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:01:18PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
i have 2 servers that i only login for apt-get update apt-get upgrade
-y, they are running sarge (yet) and only install security upgrades.
These 2 server will not
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
Recommends *are* to be installed by default, unless you specifically tell
the tool not to. This is the whole point, one that has been
Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Montag, den 11. Juni 2007:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
I want to turn it on by default in the near future, but with a
reasonable warning time for the transition.
Please never make it a default. Humans make errors and I never want packages
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:39:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
FWIW, synaptic has an option in its preferences dialog called Consider
recommended packages as dependencies, which is off by default.
I completely agree, to treat Recommends as weak dependencies and
install them by default
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:03:47AM +0200, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
upgrade path for two releases now, with its Recommends: handling being a
major reason for this. I'd be surprised if there weren't at least *some*
users switching to it as a result.
Developer users
On 10-Jun-07, 20:16 (CDT), Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
synaptic, with hardly
On 11-Jun-07, 08:45 (CDT), Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Really? I'd have guessed that most people used aptitude. I can't imagine
anyone preferring synaptic to aptitude. Of course, I don't really
understand why
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 05:39:54PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
The frontends imho just need a clear way of showing which packages are
going to be installed because of a Depends and which because of a
Recommends, so it would be easier to de-select a recommended package.
Otherwise there would
Apparently there have been bugs in this for years and no-one reported
them until they caused trouble for the d-i team several months ago.
They should be fixed in stable's aptitude now, and I would appreciate
bug reports on any transition problems that remain.
FWIW, I thought that you
On 6/10/07, Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might not have been clear on the wording. To fix this situation,
ftp://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/Translation-ja.bz2
needs to be encoded in UTF-8 instead of EUC-JP. (and I am wondering
why this file is dated back to May
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:46:37AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Apparently there have been bugs in this for years and no-one reported
them until they caused trouble for the d-i team several months ago.
They should be fixed in stable's aptitude now, and I would
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/10/07, Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might not have been clear on the wording. To fix this situation,
ftp://ftp.jp.debian.org/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/Translation-ja.bz2
needs to be encoded in UTF-8 instead of EUC-JP. (and I
On 6/10/07, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because they're not the latest files. The latest output form
the DDTP project is here:
http://ddtp.debian.net/debian/dists/sid/main/i18n/
There have been requests to have the FTP site mirror from there or
have some other mechanism to
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 07:42:40AM -0700, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with
the aptitude dependency problem
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 10:45:06AM -0700, Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
aptitude throws out the solution of revert all the proposed changes
and stay at the current state. Setting Aptitude::Discard-Null-Solution
to false will disable this behavior.
*sheepish look*
Daniel Burrows a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with
the aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour to the one
in libapt).
In what way is it
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:49:00PM -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Michael Vogt wrote:
- support for the new dpkg Breaks field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
his work on this)
Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
it, AFAIK..
-
[Daniel Burrows]
I'm in favor of either enabling this by default in apt or downgrading
Recommends in policy to just a really Suggests.
[snip interesting background material]
I would suggest - nay, I would recommend - keeping Policy the way it is
and fixing packages to use Recommends as it
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the time I added Recommends support to aptitude (2001), dselect was
still fairly widely used, and new aptitude users, while they didn't
miss dselect's strong-arming them into installing recommends, did wish
that aptitude
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
[..]
I just uploaded apt, python-apt and synaptic. If binNMUs could be
arranged for the
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:05:49PM -0500, Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
[Daniel Burrows]
I'm in favor of either enabling this by default in apt or downgrading
Recommends in policy to just a really Suggests.
[snip interesting background material]
I would suggest
Daniel Burrows wrote:
Bug #299009 is AFAIK about the fact that aptitude produces different
dependency resolutions from the visual UI versus the command-line. This
is because the command-line has more context about what the user is
doing and tweaks the resolver accordingly.
Would you
Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
Really? I'd have guessed that most people used aptitude. I can't imagine
anyone preferring synaptic to aptitude.
Yeah,
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
Really? I'd have guessed
On 6/10/07, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
Really? I'd have guessed that most people
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:13:18PM -0400, Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Daniel Burrows wrote:
Bug #299009 is AFAIK about the fact that aptitude produces different
dependency resolutions from the visual UI versus the command-line. This
is because the command-line
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 06:08:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
On 10-Jun-07, 17:47 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since then, it seems like most users have switched to apt-get and
synaptic, with hardly anyone using aptitude or dselect any more
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 04:36:15PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
The problem isn't that individual, it's that the general attitude
towards Recommends seems, from my personal and highly biased
viewpoint, to be evolving towards a strong Suggests model, rather
than a weak
On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 07:06:44PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
Well, that might be just my general pessimism rearing its ugly head :).
My impression has been that aptitude wasn't getting very many *new*
users, but it might just be that aptitude users are a self-sufficient
bunch and don't
On Monday 11 June 2007 04:17, Steve Langasek wrote:
aptitude is priority: important, and while it's not used in the
installer or mentioned in the installation manual (AFAIK),
Although no installer components use aptitude directly, tasksel - which is
called during almost all installations -
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
- automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
Please inform the buildd maintainers about this. The buildds must not
hit this changed default or the builds will get unreliable.
Bastian
--
Our missions are peaceful -- not for
Hi,
- translated package descriptions (finally!) - thanks to all the people
who made this possible (otavio, grisu and the ones that I forgot)
I quickly tested the experimental apt, and it looks broken here.
1. Japanese translated description file is currently provided in
EUC-JP codeset.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:40:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 06/06/07 17:59, Michael Vogt wrote:
I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with the
aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:55:59AM +0200, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
#include hallo.h
* Russ Allbery [Wed, Jun 06 2007, 08:40:47PM]:
Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
packages as a result of the most minor package removal?
No,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with
the aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour to the one
in libapt).
In what way is it superior? Until now,
On 08-Jun-07, 09:40 (CDT), Daniel Burrows [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why did it want to remove your packages? I can't think of any reason
that missing the previous release should have caused problems --
unless maybe there were broken dependencies that needed the previous
release in order to
Hi,
I quickly tested the experimental apt, and it looks broken here.
1. Japanese translated description file is currently provided in
EUC-JP codeset.
2. when I do apt-cache show in ja_JP.EUC-JP locale, 'apt-cache show'
stops halfway (probably when the iconv fails in UTF8ToCodeset
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
The big new stuff is:
- support for unattended installing security upgrades (via the
unattended-upgrades package and the apt cronjob)
This sounds juicy,
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
The big new stuff is:
- support for unattended installing security upgrades (via the
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
The big new stuff is:
-
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:26:50PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
How is what you describe different from what cron-apt already does?
That's precisely why I asked for details about this feature :-)
Anyhow, what I'm
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
How is what you describe different from what cron-apt already does?
That's precisely why I asked for details about this feature :-)
Anyhow, what I'm missing from cron-apt is the ability to perform
automatic upgrades only for
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
i have 2 servers that i only login for apt-get update apt-get upgrade
-y, they are running sarge (yet) and only install security upgrades.
These 2 server will not be put in danger by making the update upgrade
in an autonomous
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 06:21 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez escreveu:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 13:01 +0200, Gabor Gombas escreveu:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
i have 2 servers that i only login for apt-get update apt-get upgrade
-y, they are running sarge (yet) and only install security upgrades.
These 2 server will not be put
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:32:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
Well, if you run stable (without third-party sources), that is all you
will get along with the occasionaly point release. Of course, if you
are keeping up with security updates, then point releases won't normally
affect you.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
How is what you describe different from what cron-apt already does?
That's precisely why I asked for details about this feature :-)
Anyhow, what I'm missing from cron-apt is
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:21:03AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:36:57AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
Sex, 2007-06-08 às 09:58 +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine escreveu:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:24:48AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:54:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007, Michael Vogt wrote:
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
Big thanks and kudos for your work!
- automatic installation of recommends like aptitude
I want to check how this will affect d-i. The Recommends tree is still
fairly hairy/unrefined and can result in a lot of crud being pulled in.
(See #388290. Though having them installed by default would certianly
add pressure to fix the
#include hallo.h
* Russ Allbery [Wed, Jun 06 2007, 08:40:47PM]:
Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
packages as a result of the most minor package removal?
No, that's not done by the dependency resolver. That's done by the code
that removes packages that
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
The big new stuff is:
- support for unattended installing security upgrades (via the
unattended-upgrades package and the apt cronjob)
This sounds juicy, assuming it matches what I've in mind; where can I
find more info on this new
Hi,
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007, Michael Vogt wrote:
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
Big thanks and kudos for your work!
- automatic removal of unused dependencies moved into libapt so that
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:44:47PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Hi Michael,
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:49:00PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Michael Vogt wrote:
- support for the new dpkg Breaks field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
his work on this)
Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
it, AFAIK..
In this case apt will be ready for it
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Russ Allbery [Wed, Jun 06 2007, 08:40:47PM]:
No, that's not done by the dependency resolver. That's done by the
code that removes packages that you never told it should be installed.
This problem goes away completely if you only use
Hi Michael,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:59:38AM +0200, Michael Vogt wrote:
I plan to do an apt 0.7.2 upload for sid this weekend. It's a big merge
of the version in debian/experimental and the version in Ubuntu.
It will break the ABI, so all packages that depend on libapt will need
a rebuild
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 21:49:00 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Michael Vogt wrote:
- support for the new dpkg Breaks field (thanks to Ian Jackson for
his work on this)
Although dpkg still doesn't have Breaks support, so we still can't use
it, AFAIK..
It will have on 1.14.5.
regards,
guillem
On 06/06/07 17:59, Michael Vogt wrote:
[snip]
term. I would also love to find a way in the future to interface
with the aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour
to the one in libapt).
Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
packages as a result of
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 06/06/07 17:59, Michael Vogt wrote:
I would also love to find a way in the future to interface with the
aptitude dependency problem resolver (that is superiour to the one in
libapt).
Is this the same dependency resolver that tries to remove half your
74 matches
Mail list logo
