Russ Allbery:
> I think it's correctly doing what it should in the situation
> described in this thread.
Okay, so what I said is what I saw. And deciding if it is true or not
has always been your choice.
Ralf Mardorf:
> Seemingly you can't provide new arguments, so you should expect to
> get
Alberto Salvia Novella writes:
> The problem seems to be that the package manager does not make its basic
> functionality, which is to make clear for users which packages they wish
> to remove.
> For me it seems a minor problem that a console tool could be removed,
>
David Kalnischkies:
> Your complain was after all that apt declares some packages you
> consider unused as used...
The problem seems to be that the package manager does not make its basic
functionality, which is to make clear for users which packages they wish
to remove.
For me it seems a
On Dec 24 2015, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Asking the user to confirm each and every removal would end up being
> pretty annoying very fast and if its something you don't want to train
> users to do, its is brainlessly pressing yes a hundred times as the
> important
Ralf Mardorf:
> Do you think it would be a good idea if apt would provide a checklist
> that ask the user for each command 20 or 30 questions before it
> continues?
It could be that, instead of asking if to proceed, to write down
packages to exclude.
Alberto Salvia Novella:
> What should
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 01:50:45AM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso:
> David Kalnischkies:
> > It is not a good idea to perform autoremoves unattended for situations
> > in which you have installed A (gui) depends B (console) depends
> > C (data), but later decide
Luis Felipe Tabera Alonso:
aptitude why $packagename
Oh! this is very useful!
David Kalnischkies:
> It is not a good idea to perform autoremoves unattended for situations
> in which you have installed A (gui) depends B (console) depends
> C (data), but later decide that you don't like A.
Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 10:03:15 Ondřej Surý a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 09:37, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> > *) "apt-get remove $(deborphan)" is more dangerous; and should be done
> > manually;
> > and then one can also build fake empty packages with equivs to register
> > some
> >
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015, at 09:37, Alexandre Detiste wrote:
> *) "apt-get remove $(deborphan)" is more dangerous; and should be done
> manually;
> and then one can also build fake empty packages with equivs to register
> some
> -libs or -devel packages as needed by a local application.
Errr, why?
Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 00:35:25 Robie Basak a écrit :
> I had always assumed that this is the risk you take by using autoremove
> and thus you need to pay attention to what you autoremove, which is for
> example why unattended-upgrades is sensible by not doing it by default.
Excepted that
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:35:25AM +, Robie Basak wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
> > install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A is
> > extended by B on
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
> install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A is
> extended by B on your system. Automatically removing B could thus
> cause an unexpected
Julian Andres Klode:
autoremove will remove all packages that no other package
PreDepends, Depends, Recommends, or Suggests.
Probably the problem is the latest.
Since I did not install other package apart from cortina, probably what
is holding back gdm is a package already present in the
On 21 December 2015 at 14:59, Alberto Salvia Novella
wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
>>
>> autoremove will remove all packages that no other package
>> PreDepends, Depends, Recommends, or Suggests.
>
>
> Probably the problem is the latest.
>
> Since I did not install other
Robie Basak writes:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> I'll repeat this one last time for you: If A suggests B, and you
>> install B in some way, you may have come to rely on the fact that A is
>> extended by B on your system.
Julian Andres Klode:
> It just happens that some of the newly installed dependencies are also
> Suggested by other installed packages, and thus are not removed,
> because you might have installed the package in order to extend the
> functionality of another installed package suggesting it.
sudo
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:35:21PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > It just happens that some of the newly installed dependencies are also
> > Suggested by other installed packages, and thus are not removed,
> > because you might have installed the package in order
Hi,
Quoting Julian Andres Klode (2015-12-21 13:43:41)
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:35:21PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> > Julian Andres Klode:
> > > It just happens that some of the newly installed dependencies are also
> > > Suggested by other installed packages, and thus are not
On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 17:03 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:57:39PM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > Hi Julian
> >
> > On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 16:13 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > I also wrote I am thinking about adding some kind of apt revert command
> > >
Julian Andres Klode:
> If A suggests B, and you install B in some way, you may have come to
> rely on the fact that A is extended by B on your system.
> Automatically removing B could thus cause an unexpected loss of
> functionality.
The point I do not understand is why after removing A, being A
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:10:31PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > If A suggests B, and you install B in some way, you may have come to
> > rely on the fact that A is extended by B on your system.
> > Automatically removing B could thus cause an unexpected loss of
>
Julian Andres Klode:
It does not show you version numbers. gnome-shell recommends gdm,
because it works best with it, and breaks old gdm versions it does
not work with.
Okay. Thank you.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:57:39PM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> Hi Julian
>
> On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 16:13 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I also wrote I am thinking about adding some kind of apt revert command
> > that allows you to revert entries from apt's history.log, which would
On lunes, 21 de diciembre de 2015 16:10:31 (CET) Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > If A suggests B, and you install B in some way, you may have come to
> > rely on the fact that A is extended by B on your system.
> > Automatically removing B could thus cause an unexpected
Julian Andres Klode:
> Usually it is a Suggests from another existing package.
If I run "apt-cache depends gnome-shell", it says:
Recommends: gdm
Breaks: gdm
Is this normal, having a package both as recommended and as breaking?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Hi Julian
On Mon, 2015-12-21 at 16:13 +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I also wrote I am thinking about adding some kind of apt revert command
> that allows you to revert entries from apt's history.log, which would allow
> you to undo install commands.
That will be really a great feature. I
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:37:40PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > Usually it is a Suggests from another existing package.
>
> If I run "apt-cache depends gnome-shell", it says:
> Recommends: gdm
> Breaks: gdm
>
> Is this normal, having a package both as
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 04:37:40PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode:
> > Usually it is a Suggests from another existing package.
>
> If I run "apt-cache depends gnome-shell", it says:
> Recommends: gdm
> Breaks: gdm
>
> Is this normal, having a package both as
Alberto Salvia Novella writes:
> I want to report a bug that affects the .deb packaging itself, so
> every single package manager is affected too.
If you have a general (as in, no specific implementable proposal) issue
with Debian package management, a bug report is
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 07:44:42PM +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> I want to report a bug that affects the .deb packaging itself, so every
> single package manager is affected too.
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1528028
>
> How shall I do it?
You don't. You fix
I want to report a bug that affects the .deb packaging itself, so every
single package manager is affected too.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1528028
How shall I do it?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
31 matches
Mail list logo