On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:00:06 +
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 19 December 2016 18:58:43 Joe wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100
> >
> > Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote:
> > > > Do you have X running?
On Monday 19 December 2016 18:58:43 Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100
>
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote:
> > > Do you have X running?
> >
> > Not always.
> >
> > > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try
On 2016-12-19 18:58:43 +, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can
> > undo a choice if it yields removals).
>
> Difficult to see how it could be automated, as sometimes
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:51 +0100
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote:
> > Do you have X running?
>
> Not always.
>
> > I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages
> > to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm
On 2016-12-16 18:06:26 +, Joe wrote:
> Do you have X running?
Not always.
> I use Synaptic in these situations, where it is easy to try packages
> to see what can be upgraded without removals I'm not willing to
> accept.
But that's not automatic (aptitude can also do that, and one can
undo
On Fri 16 Dec 2016 at 12:40:29 (+0100), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:40:29 +0100
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17
On 2016-12-07 23:45:24 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > > On
On Wednesday 07 December 2016 14:55:40 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >
On 2016-10-13 00:09:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > my position remains the same:
> > > > aptitude is poorly
On 13/10/16 12:09, Lisi Reisz wrote:
I don't use Sid, so haven't tested out which package managers are good for it
when there are problems, but how about looking at apt or apt-get? Ben says
that he has great success with apt-get. Apt-get is much less aggressive than
aptitude - but less fully
On Friday 07 October 2016 15:43:17 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > my position remains the same:
> > > aptitude is poorly designed.
> >
> > Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help
On Monday 10 October 2016 19:04:22 Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:20:22 +0100
>
> Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't
> > squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel.
>
> Or perhaps it has been squeaking
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:20:22 +0100
Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> I accepted that analogy too easily. In this case, the wheel isn't
> squeaking. He dislikes the colour and design of the wheel.
>
Or perhaps it has been squeaking for so long that nobody hears it any
more.
On Monday 10 October 2016 09:07:14 Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Bob Bernstein wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else?
> >
> > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that?
On Monday 10 October 2016 09:07:14 Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
>
> Bob Bernstein wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else?
> >
> > Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that?
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 21:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
Bob Bernstein wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> > Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else?
>
> Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps?
>
> One thing's fer sure, he's giving the
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
Why not just killfile me and go on reading everyone else?
Umm...cuz he doesn't know how to do that? Perhaps?
One thing's fer sure, he's giving the time-honored tradition of
killfiles a bad name!
--
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the
On Sunday 09 October 2016 17:22:07 claude juif wrote:
> 2016-10-09 17:57 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz :
> > On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote:
> > > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't
> > > write a mail.
> >
> > I hope that in
2016-10-09 17:57 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz :
> On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote:
> > This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't
> > write a mail.
>
> I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice!
>
> Yep for sure. I
On Sunday 09 October 2016 06:23:49 claude juif wrote:
> This way of answering is really bad. If you have nothing to say, don't
> write a mail.
I hope that in future you intend to follow your own advice!
Lisi
2016-10-04 16:12 GMT+02:00 Mark Fletcher :
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your
> call.
> > > Either rewrite Aptitude and
2016-10-04 23:51 GMT+02:00 Lisi Reisz :
> On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > my position remains the same:
> > aptitude is poorly designed.
>
> Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You
> don't like Aptitude. We
On 08/10/16 03:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
my position remains the same:
aptitude is poorly designed.
Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You
don't like
On 2016-10-04 22:51:34 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > my position remains the same:
> > aptitude is poorly designed.
>
> Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You
> don't like Aptitude. We get the
On Oct 4, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Much Open Source software has poor or non-existent
> documentation - documentation is the boring bit to write!!
Don’t know about boring, but documentation is much harder to write than
programs.
The development/testing
On Tuesday 04 October 2016 10:48:01 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 03:03:45 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable.
> >
> > [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation.
>
> If the program has behavior that doesn't match
On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:25:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> my position remains the same:
> aptitude is poorly designed.
Fine. So don't use it. But moaning won't help anyone, not even you. You
don't like Aptitude. We get the message. So don't use Aptitude.
Lisi
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your call.
> > Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. I
> > like
> > it. Many
On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 03:03:45 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It's poorly designed because bugs[*] are not fixable.
>
> [*] behavior that doesn't match the documentation.
If the program has behavior that doesn't match the documentation, that sounds
more like poor implementation than poor
On 2016-10-01 14:58:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On that note, I wonder if it would be easier to give aptitude some
> "resolver profiles" that are selectable on the UI and behave more like
> dist-upgrade, safe-upgrade, and the "should work for everything, but
> might offer rather
On 2016-09-30 14:32:49 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice. Your call.
> Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use it; or don't use it. I like
> it. Many like it. No-one is making you use it. Use your package manager of
> choice, or
On 2016-09-30 09:31:39 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
> >> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
> >> should labeled "poorly designed".
> > I'm not the only one to complain.
>
> My point is that saying it's
On Friday 30 September 2016 15:20:07 Ric Moore wrote:
> Suppose I don't want Firefox at all??
There is the probable, the possible, the impossible, the unheard of - and then
there is not wanting Firefox. ;-)
Lisi
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Andre Majorel wrote:
> And that getting some people to acknowledge that there even is a
> problem, let alone fix it, should be so difficult.
This is a well-known limitation of aptitude (at least among DDs), and
given the number of threads about it in d-user, it should be
On Sep 28, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2016-09-28 10:46 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl
>>> packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to
On 2016-09-30 14:32 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Friday 30 September 2016 10:31:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> > I'm not the only one to complain.
>
> For goodness sake!!! This is Debian. Open Source. Choice.
> Your call. Either rewrite Aptitude and publish a fork; use
> it; or don't use it.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, John Hasler wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
>
> Aptitude was designed to be used with *Stable*. People who use Unstable
I didn't get that memo... as far as I am concerned, aptitude is the only
interactive apt frontend
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
Aptitude was designed to be used with *Stable*. People who use Unstable
are expected to know what they are doing and be able to deal with
problems. Trying to make Aptitude so intelligent that it could buffer
naive users
On 09/30/2016 09:32 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
You COULD even change to an rpm distro and have a completely different moan
available to you. ;-)
Who says Linux isn't sexy to use?? I think that the biggest beef is not
the package manager, but the packages that depended on everything else
>> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
>> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
>> should labeled "poorly designed".
> I'm not the only one to complain.
My point is that saying it's "poorly designed" is like calling the author
an idiot. So it's
On Friday 30 September 2016 10:31:46 Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-09-29 19:04:20 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
> >
> > Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
> > should labeled "poorly designed".
>
> I'm not
On 2016-09-29 19:04:20 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
>
> Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
> should labeled "poorly designed".
I'm not the only one to complain.
--
Vincent Lefèvre -
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:33:58AM -0400, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> YES, I know this is Unstable. That's why I specifically made that
> declaration in the email's subject line and other (i.e. "the bug
> report", grin). I'm one of the ones who issues that statement herself
> on regular occasion.
> It's a pity that Aptitude is so poorly designed.
Just because it doesn't always work the way you want it doesn't mean it
should labeled "poorly designed".
Stefan
On 2016-09-29 10:50:39 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-09-28 23:05:31 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> > There is an option to tune the resolver. I have got the following in my
> > /etc/apt/apt.conf:
> >
> > ,
> > | // tweak Aptitude to not suggest removals as first option
> > |
On 2016-09-29 13:28:48 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> > But what if PackageA is something like libc? A hundred packages are to be
> > upgraded but PackageB is old and incompatible. Clearly, even though you've
> > boosted the cost of removals,
On 2016-09-29 10:17:57 +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> Looking at the documentation for SolutionCost, it only makes removals more
> costly. There is no way to say "never remove any packages".
Actually, the problem doesn't seem to be a cost one, but the fact
that Aptitude *skips* solutions where some
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Hello Vincent,
>I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to
>remove any package I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes
> absolutely no sense - and often problematic.
It's more complicated than this. There are other (non-Perl,
On 2016-09-28 14:50:50 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any
> > package I have manually installed.
>
> It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes
> a solution to the problem you present it
On 2016-09-28 21:37:54 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> >> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>
> >>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the
> >>> perl packages. This is a misfeature of
On 2016-09-28 19:30:07 +0100, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> Hello Vincent,
>
> >I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to
> >remove any package I have manually installed.
>
> I don't use aptitude, but if
On 2016-09-28 23:05:31 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> There is an option to tune the resolver. I have got the following in my
> /etc/apt/apt.conf:
>
> ,
> | // tweak Aptitude to not suggest removals as first option
> | Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost "removals";
> `
Unfortunately,
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes
> absolutely no sense - and often problematic.
There is pretty much a 1:1 mapping from CPAN packages to Debian
packages. The only thing which is even remotely complicated is how perl
Andre Majorel wrote:
> On 2016-09-28 10:46 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the
>>> perl packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to
>>> remove packages instead of
As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes
absolutely no sense - and often problematic.
Perl has its own ecosystem (cpan) that does an incredibly good job of
packaging, updating, and dependency management. Mixing and matching
that with Debian packaging, and
> It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes
> a solution to the problem you present it with. You can reject that
> solution and have it try again.
FWIW, the way it presents the solution makes it hard to see what's
really going on. More specifically, the list of removed
Andre Majorel writes:
> If aptitude got it wrong half the time, it might be for want of
> reading minds. But in my experience it gets it consistently
> wrong. Suggests to me that what it needs is new heuristics.
Patches are always welcome.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On 2016-09-28 10:46 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl
> > packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove
> > packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude
> >
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to remove any
> package I have manually installed.
It doesn't remove anything without your permission. It proposes
a solution to the problem you present it with. You can reject that
solution and have it try again.
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>>> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the
>>> perl packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to
>>> remove packages instead of
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:55:49 +0200
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Hello Vincent,
>I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to
>remove any package I have manually installed.
I don't use aptitude, but if I understand things correctly, you don't
have to accept the first
> I'm not asking it to read my mind. I just want it not to
> remove any package I have manually installed.
FWIW, I really wish Debian could upgrade their package tools to follow
a model similar to Nix/Guix. Basically, I'd like to have a master
configuration file where I list the packages I want
On 2016-09-28 10:46:31 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl
> > packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove
> > packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude
>
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> Things like that should not happen. But this is not a bug in the perl
> packages. This is a misfeature of apt / aptitude, which want to remove
> packages instead of holding the new packages (well, AFAIK, aptitude
> has improved, but is still not perfect).
Aptitude can't
On 2016-09-24 15:48:15 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> > Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
> > packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
> > this morning:
>
> > perl 5.24.1~rc3-2
> > perl-base
On 25/09/16 01:26, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
this morning:
perl 5.24.1~rc3-2
perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2
Before running "apt-get dist-upgrade", I always simulate first
First off I have been playing around with 'compose > text' and 'send >
text' options in Thunderbird so I apologize ahead of time if A: lines
are excessively long and B: that is an issue for you in whatever you
are using to read this.
On 9/24/2016 8:33 AM, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
What you're
Christian Seiler wrote:
> it's IMHO a good idea to subscribe to debian-release for anyone
> running pure sid, so they can have an overview over currently active
> transitions.
It's also a good idea to subscribe to debian-devel-announce. This
transition was announced there, but the announcement
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 06:36:21PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
>
> Regarding the original problem: I'd recommend to anyone running
> sid to also have testing in their sources.list - so they can
> force the installation of an older package version while a
> transition is still ongoing. Also,
Copied from debian-devel-announce:
From: Dominic Hargreaves
Subject: Perl 5.24 transition underway
To: debian-devel-annou...@lists.debian.org
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:57:14 +0100 (17 minutes, 7 seconds ago)
Mail-Followup-To: Dominic Hargreaves ,
Package: cron-apt
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 43
Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist
Architecture: all
Version: 0.9.3
Depends: apt
Recommends: liblockfile1, mailx, cron | cron-daemon
Conffiles:
/etc/cron.d/cron-apt
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:26 AM, Cindy-Sue Causey
> wrote:
>
> Am on dialup and have to be
> selective about the order in which packages are upgraded
Have you considered a local, partial mirror? A 64G thumbdrive doesn't cost
much, it'd hold a lot of .debs, the local
On 09/24/2016 06:02 PM, Glenn English wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:44 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> For my own education, I'm not sure what you mean by "backup your current
>> state
>> before upgrading"--does that mean a full backup of your system, or is there
>> a
>> way to somehow
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 7:44 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> For my own education, I'm not sure what you mean by "backup your current state
> before upgrading"--does that mean a full backup of your system, or is there a
> way to somehow save the current "state" of the package list on your
On 9/24/16, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 09:26:36 AM Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
>> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
>> this morning:
>
>> Just
On 9/24/16, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
>> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
>> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
>> this morning:
>
>> perl 5.24.1~rc3-2
>> perl-base
Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
> this morning:
> perl 5.24.1~rc3-2
> perl-base 5.24.1~rc3-2
> I grab AMD64 packages in case that makes a
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 09:26:36 AM Cindy-Sue Causey wrote:
> Good morning! Just a heads up that upgrading the following two
> packages attempts to remove 141 unrelated packages in Sid/Unstable
> this morning:
...
> Just sharing because I was in a hurry and almost let it happen. I
>
80 matches
Mail list logo