On 10/20/2014 at 11:59 AM, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 09:32:54AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
David Kalnischkies:
This isn't trying harder, it is trying increasingly incorrect
solutions to the problem because aptitude assumes the users is
not able to express
On Ma, 21 oct 14, 09:08:26, The Wanderer wrote:
What I think is being asked for (and what I'd certainly like to see,
anyway) is a way for the user, having figured out which packages they
don't want removed, to tell the aptitude resolver that and have it taken
into account in calculating a
On Jo, 16 oct 14, 17:35:09, Martin Read wrote:
mormegil@cocytus:~$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00dontbeanidiot
Aptitude::ProblemResolver {
SolutionCost priority, removals, canceled-actions;
I've had better (as in not unexpected) results with just 'removals'.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 09:32:54AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
David Kalnischkies:
Apitude, too, *really* likes to choose 500 deletions rather than upgrading
even a single package to a version with slightly-lower priority (as
defined
in /etc/apt/pref*), but at least you can tell
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 01:34:13PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
cc:ing the apt maintainers to get their opinion on making this the default...
[Disclaimer: I have written the APT part of it. I might be biased.]
Hell no – as this isn't the point of the implementation. It is intended
to help
Hi,
David Kalnischkies:
Apitude, too, *really* likes to choose 500 deletions rather than upgrading
even a single package to a version with slightly-lower priority (as defined
in /etc/apt/pref*), but at least you can tell it to try harder. :-/
I shouldn't, I really shouldn't, but well, I
On Sun Oct 19, 2014 09:32:54AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
David Kalnischkies:
Selecting one package in an or-group is a grand example of people not
understand their tools although the policy is simple and logic: If it
isn't impossible to let it win, the first alternative wins. If the
Hi,
cc:ing the apt maintainers to get their opinion on making this the default...
On Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2014, Thomas Krennwallner wrote:
Basically, this boils down to the fact that people shouldn't have to read
a manpage about a complex priority scheme in an equally-complex
resolver. All
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
Hi,
cc:ing the apt maintainers to get their opinion on making this the default...
aspcud is not suitable as a default solver. It is far too slow and
ignores some aspects people are accustomed to, like a Depends: a | b
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:20:54PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Florian Lohoff:
is it intentional that gnome is removed when systemd is replaced by
sysvinit-core?
Please always retry this kind of thing with aptitude, and try to let it
choose alternate resolutions to the dependency
Hi,
Martin Read:
I got sick of remove half the planet being the first suggested option, so
added a configuration fragment to /etc/apt/apt.conf.d that gets a behaviour
I find more reasonable:
Ah. Thank you very much. I'll add that to my generic all my Debian stuff
should have this package.
Dominik George:
There is no GNOME without systemd. This is not specific to Debian.
Florian Lohoff:
Because i - aehm - cant set an icon for my system via hostnamed or something?
As you've spotted, what M. George wrote is ambiguous and unspecific and liable
to be further distorted. This may
Hi,
but it seems there is some dependency in jessie which makes gnome
unavailable
without systemd.
It is there because upstream requires it. There is no GNOME without systemd.
This is not specific to Debian.
-nik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On 16/10/14 12:47, Dominik George wrote:
Hi,
but it seems there is some dependency in jessie which makes gnome
unavailable
without systemd.
It is there because upstream requires it. There is no GNOME without systemd.
This is not specific to Debian.
No, that's wrong.
$ sudo aptitude
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:47:41PM +0200, Dominik George wrote:
Hi,
but it seems there is some dependency in jessie which makes gnome
unavailable
without systemd.
It is there because upstream requires it. There is no GNOME without systemd.
This is not specific to Debian.
*örgs* Because
Hi,
Florian Lohoff:
is it intentional that gnome is removed when systemd is replaced by
sysvinit-core?
Please always retry this kind of thing with aptitude, and try to let it
choose alternate resolutions to the dependency chains.
Apitude, too, *really* likes to choose 500 deletions rather
On 16/10/14 12:20, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Apitude, too, *really* likes to choose 500 deletions rather than upgrading
even a single package to a version with slightly-lower priority (as defined
in /etc/apt/pref*), but at least you can tell it to try harder. :-/
I got sick of remove half the
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:35:09PM +0100, Martin Read wrote:
mormegil@cocytus:~$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00dontbeanidiot
Aptitude::ProblemResolver {
SolutionCost priority, removals, canceled-actions;
}
That looks very useful, thanks!
Bas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 20:36 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:35:09PM +0100, Martin Read wrote:
mormegil@cocytus:~$ cat /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/00dontbeanidiot
Aptitude::ProblemResolver {
SolutionCost priority, removals, canceled-actions;
}
That looks very useful, thanks!
19 matches
Mail list logo
