So, you are saying that it is okay to run scripts which are no longer maintained? And that we should help script writers to write scripts which are not maintained but should not fail in the future (at least not in an obvious way)? Those are the same "helpers" run with --yes (and sometimes --force-yes), right?
Completely ignoring my personal opinion on those "helpers": Renames aren't covered either. What used to be a game, is now a browser (chromium) and what used to be tools for file and process operations is now a version control system (git). A handy-dandy helper setting up a tlh environment in distro v1 stops doing the same in distro v2 because packages got renamed, dropped, whatever… are you going to tell a badly tempered Klingon he should be happy, that the script at least didn't complain loudly, even if it didn't worked in the end? Its not that hard to check for existence of a package from a script if you really want to. And even if you don't, apt-get is accepting more than just simple packagenames on the commandline (did I hear someone saying regex?) so if you really want to, you can have all the cake and eat it now already. No need for yet another obscure option, way too much already. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/512190 Title: "apt-get --ignore-missing install" fails when it can't find a package To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/512190/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
