Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: severity -1 important
Control: owner -1 !
On 8 August 2014 16:23, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Severity: normal
I type 'U', and get for linux-libc-dev:i386:
Some dependencies of linux-libc-dev:i386 are
On 27 July 2014 21:35, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
I promised this a while ago and I've finally found the leisure and
time to implement it:
A small script (well, two scripts actually, but both quite simple)
which finds all aptitude-doc-* packages in Debian Unstable, downloads
On 5 August 2014 01:08, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
Stanley Schade wrote:
I am running an up-to-date installation of jessie and recently found
that aptitude does not install the new init package automatically,
though it is marked as essential.
... which is what I would expect.
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 22 July 2014 18:21, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1
Hi,
I actually ran into the following on Debian Wheezy, but then also was
able to reproduce this in Sid:
If I try
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 5 August 2014 09:02, Stanley Schade nood0...@web.de wrote:
Hi again,
Am Montag, 4. August 2014, 19:08:35 schrieb Axel Beckert:
Hi,
Stanley Schade wrote:
[...] aptitude does not install the new init package automatically,
though it is
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
On 10 June 2014 21:32, Jose Antonio Ortega Ruiz j...@gnu.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1
Severity: important
I've got a local configuration file in ~/.aptitude/config with the
contents:
aptitude::Keep-Unused-Pattern ;
On 10 June 2014 04:58, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
One remark though about something I didn't notice with the previous
version:
aptitude doesn't seem to cleanly build twice in a row. After a
non-chrooted build with debuild and debclean afterwards,
pdebuild for the chrooted build
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: important
Tags: confirmed
Aptitude is often invoked using su or sudo for privileges to manage
packages. These are not required when calling some other utilities,
such as the pager (as in 'aptitude changelog') or reportbug, or creating
and accessing
On 2 June 2014 15:17, Matijs van Zuijlen mat...@matijs.net wrote:
A suggestion is made in the -done mail that would indeed alleviate the
problem somewhat (swapping user ids), but I see no follow-up bug to
arrange for this to happen.
Are you expecting me to file any follow-up bugs?
No. See
On 2 June 2014 19:48, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Will add:
* debian/control: New Build-Depends on libxapian-dev,
replacing libept-dev.
Thanks.
Uploaded (mentors.d.n).
___
Aptitude-devel mailing
is reverted
until a simple mechanism can be decided upon, perhaps similar to what
happens with ~/.aptitude/config (only create if the path is within the
real users HOME, but even this has some problems).
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
___
Aptitude-devel
Control: forcemerge 675833 -1
On 18 May 2014 08:17, Daniel Leidert daniel.leid...@wgdd.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10-1
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was trying to hack something together and found, that e.g.
aptitude changelog
On 9 May 2014 02:08, Stephen McGregor x...@stephen-mcgregor.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.10
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
the specific situation:
- [ already filed as #747406 against ruby]
-a ruby corruption is
On 7 March 2014 00:58, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-06 00:01 Daniel Hartwig:
On 5 March 2014 07:08, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
I am not satisfied with the quality of commits Manuel is making.
Hey
On 5 March 2014 07:08, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
I am not satisfied with the quality of commits Manuel is making.
Hey, nobody's perfect!
Did we remove your commit access just because we were not satisfied
with you being MIA for about 1.5 years
Hello
I am not satisfied with the quality of commits Manuel is making. As
the long standing maintainer, I am removing his commit access until
such time that the quality of his patches improves.
He is welcome to continue submitting patches, performing work on the
bts, and sponsoring prepared
On 3 March 2014 03:22, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
Is this bug still happening? I haven't experience it, at least
recently, in several systems that I administer.
I suspect this is rather to do with duplicate lines in the
On 3 March 2014 08:21, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-03 0:12 GMT+00:00 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-09 16:41 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
On 3 March 2014 00:38, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags 647474 + pending
Control: owner 647474 !
2014-02-09 10:43 GMT+00:00 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com:
But as I also said, I think that the way in which Daniel Burrows
On 3 March 2014 08:40, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-03 0:38 GMT+00:00 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 3 March 2014 03:12, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags 463510 + pending
2014-02-09 15:52 GMT+00:00
Control: tags -1 = wontfix
On 21 February 2014 06:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
The reason why this is not straightforward, as far as I can tell, is
because there's no place where this information is saved.
Right.
it.
Not at all. I hope you will consider tackling some other bugs in aptitude.
I am the one who applied the gift (how-can-i-help) tag to this bug,
and seem to have forgotten about it since then. Removing them now as
this is no longer an interesting issue to work on.
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
On 23 February 2014 16:29, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2014 04:08, Kuro Maii kurol...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hello all and/or developers of aptitude,
I have a request to update the cli output of aptitude to be human
readable. I request this because I have used fedora
On 23 February 2014 18:42, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
user debian...@lists.debian.org
usertag 739854 + gift
thanks
Nice to have, but not a serious blocker. Contact
de...@lists.debian.org or myself if the previous mail did not contain
enough information to implement
Hello
The Jessie freeze is scheduled for November.[1] The follow process is
for development and continuous release of two main branches.
The pending interface and other disruptive changes are best released
on experimental, under the 0.7 development series. This allows plenty
of room for
On 12 February 2014 09:50, manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-11 15:30 Axel Beckert:
Will upload again soon, just updating some libdevel files on this
machine first.
Done.
Like Manuel, I missunderstood these sentences first, too, but I now
think you talk of a reupload to
-- Forwarded message --
From: mentors.debian.net supp...@mentors.debian.net
Date: 10 February 2014 15:55
Subject: aptitude uploaded to mentors.debian.net
To: mand...@gmail.com
Hi.
Your upload of the package 'aptitude' to mentors.debian.net was
successful. Others can now see it.
On 10 February 2014 16:00, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Your upload of the package 'aptitude' to mentors.debian.net was
successful. Others can now see it. The URL of your package is:
http://mentors.debian.net/package/aptitude
The respective dsc file can be found at:
http
Hello
I have just pushed two branches, updated for current master.
* dth/remove-libept
Libept is suggested to be removed by its developer. Aptitude only
uses it to read debtags database and initiate apt-xapian-index. Both
of these tasks are trivial to perform without libept, so this branch
is
On 10 February 2014 02:16, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-09 11:27 Daniel Hartwig:
* dth/remove-libept
Libept is suggested to be removed by its developer. Aptitude only
uses it to read debtags database and initiate apt-xapian-index. Both
On 8 February 2014 23:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
- I marked as not translatable the ones in GTK GUI and fixed the one
which was not using ngettext, but GTK is disabled since long ago and
never was in good shape. Same for Qt GUI.
Is there a common/easy
On 8 February 2014 23:29, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + pending
Thanks for raising this up and the recommendations.
Some of these things are obsolete already, but I addressed most of the
rest of the things, will be present in the new
On 9 February 2014 03:41, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: block 412830 by 463510
Control: tags 463510 + moreinfo
Hi,
I was pondering about this and I am leaning towards accepting the
suggestion in #463510 and remove the option to run reportbug
On 9 February 2014 03:47, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
I am considering doing this, but even if relatively simple, it would
be quite a lot of work documenting it, adding hints in --help, even
deciding the best short names and
Control: tags -1 = confirmed
Control: owner -1 !
On 9 February 2014 09:05, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
forcemerge 647474 720074
severity 647474 minor
owner 647474 !
tags 647474 + patch moreinfo
stop
Hi,
The problem was introduced here in 2007, after a
On 6 February 2014 06:37, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-05 00:56:26 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch
On 4 February 2014 19:53, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 10:49:53 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Again, I am only addressing the proposed patch. There are better
options, such as adjusting the default value of
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to account
On 3 February 2014 17:46, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-03 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
Control: tags -1 - pending
On 3 February 2014 02:56, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + pending
Fix
On 3 February 2014 23:58, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-03 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
Duplicates are not desirable, even if it resolves the issue with
missing packages. Anyway, lets just have it reverted and fixed on
wip-cmdline (weeks now, see
On 2 February 2014 14:56, Chris Tillman toff.till...@gmail.com wrote:
Tags: patch
I think the root of the problem (removing being preferential to upgrading
in Aptitude's worldview) is that the safe-level and remove-level default
scores are the same.
Hi
Thanks for your interest and patch.
On 4 February 2014 01:27, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-02-03 Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montez...@gmail.com:
2014-02-03 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 3 February 2014 23:58, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote
On 1 February 2014 23:25, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-31 Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com:
On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: owner -1 !
This can probably be fixed now by downloading
The safety cost levels are not intended to fine tune the results.
They are a broad base to start from. There are other parameters for
Aptitude::ProblemResolver::SolutionCost to provide tweaking (e.g. 3 *
removals + installs). Details are in the manual, where I think it is
quite clear.
More
On 4 February 2014 10:24, Vincent Lefevre vinc...@vinc17.net wrote:
On 2014-02-04 01:29:30 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
There is nothing fundamentally better or worse about either removals
or installs, in some situations you might find this:
solution 1: upgrade 20 packages
solution 2
To begin chasing down a real, workable solution:
The default SolutionCost is safety, priority. I suspect the main
problem here may be due to the unintended interactions of priority
when there are/aren't removals involved, but do not have time to
investigate further just yet *hint*.
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
[Waiting on feedback whether this is still an issue on the new
changelog service run by ftp-master.]
On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: owner -1 !
This can probably be fixed now by downloading the
Control: tags -1 - pending
On 3 February 2014 02:56, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: tags -1 + pending
Fix commited, it will be included in the next release if no problem is
found with the fix.
On 31 January 2014 20:32, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Control: owner -1 !
This can probably be fixed now by downloading the files from the
target distribution, when the first attempt to get by package name and
version fails, e.g.:
experimental_changelog
and will
make this issue with State more prominent again. The issue will be
tended to in a continuation of that work.
Regards
Daniel Hartwig
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/687474
___
Aptitude-devel mailing list
Aptitude-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http
On 1 February 2014 13:58, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
The concern being that it is misleading to report not installed for
upgrades, though it may be technically correct, in a sense. It has been
suggested to make things more clear by changing the state field to say
not installed
Hi Manuel
[commit 6ae2d97 on master]
-const std::string short_description =
- (boost::format(Changelog of %s) % ver.ParentPkg().Name()).str();
+const std::string short_description = _(Changelog of) + std::string(
) + info-get_display_name();
Nice catch, that this was not being
On 24 January 2014 18:06, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-01-24 02:38 Daniel Hartwig:
This issue and other inconsistencies in the command line interface
will be addressed by an extensive work I have in progress to
restructure that module, using new tools
On 25 January 2014 05:57, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2014-01-24 16:42 Axel Beckert:
Hi,
0.6.8.3-1 soon reaches testing and we've already gathered another
bunch bug fixes in the master branch, including the new
aptitude-doc-ru binary package.
I
On 24 January 2014 05:11, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
manuel.montez...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I am not sure if it's better to leave this open or close
it. Realistically, I don't think that this is going to be fixed,
Not immediately, but that is no reason to close it off. There is real
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dan Jacobson jida...@jidanni.org
To: Debian Bug Tracking System sub...@bugs.debian.org
Cc:
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 03:01:49 +0800
Subject: aptitude: not installed not noted upon purge
# aptitude purge libgd2-xpm
...
The following
/usr/share/doc/aptitude/html/en/index.html with HTML 4.01
Transitional document type...
No errors!
It seems to have been fixed in this commit, present in 0.6.8:
commit 59d734c9028463c8b436851960195f8c69ef0693
Author: Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com
Date
Control: severity -1 normal
On 29 July 2013 13:45, Axel Stammler a...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: important
Dear Maintainer,
_Every_ time I call Aptitude with the install option, I get a message like
WARNING: untrusted versions of the
Control: block 716828 by 716944
On 24 July 2013 19:03, Lifeng Sun lifong...@gmail.com wrote:
[aptitude] suffers another FTBFS bug [6].
The current versions of google-mock and gtest in unstable are
incompatible with each other. As google-mock relies on gtest,
aptitude will continue to FTBFS
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
Control: merge -1 686124
On 19 July 2013 17:42, Lorenz H-S lorenz-...@lgh-alumni.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
upon choosing Views - New Categorical Browser in aptitude's ncurses inferace,
it crashes
Control: merge -1 568876
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On 16 July 2013 01:07, Uwe Storbeck u...@ibr.ch wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I have set APT::Get::Purge and Aptitude::Purge-Unused to true.
Aptitude normally honors these settings when
On 3 July 2013 15:54, Harald Dunkel harald.dun...@aixigo.de wrote:
Hi folks,
please note that I don't want to loose the information which
packages have been downgraded on purpose. I just want to _list_
these packages.
Maybe a new search option could help?
This is almost equivalent to
Control: tags -1 + pending
On 27 June 2013 01:12, Илья Мыльница mylntsa.ilya...@gmail.com wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
When I try to append %r escape to format of status line it crashes and
prints Ouch! Got SIGSEGV, dying..\nSegmentation fault and does it every
next running,
On 29 June 2013 17:57, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Please list the steps used to downgrade the package.
Select a package, press v, press + on the package in Testing,
press g 2x.
After the package has been downgraded, exit aptitude. Start aptitide
again
On 29 June 2013 15:14, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Usually I have both testing and unstable in my sources.list.
Problem: If I explicitly downgrade a package to testing (e.g.
cryptsetup), then
aptitude search ~U
or aptitude search
On 29 June 2013 16:14, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 June 2013 15:14, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Usually I have both testing and unstable in my sources.list.
Problem: If I explicitly downgrade a package to testing (e.g
Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
On 24 June 2013 03:18, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Man page says
Similarly, to select a package from a particular archive, append
/archive to the package name: for instance,
On 9 June 2013 19:59, David Kalnischkies kalnischkies+deb...@gmail.com wrote:
That said, it might be interesting to know what the benefits of the
aptitude.log are now that we have /var/log/apt/history.log around for a while.
The aptitude.log will be removed in the future. Besides duplicating
On 2 June 2013 09:10, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Hi Daniel.
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 01:03 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Unnecessary noise. Visual cues such as alternate colour are quite
attention grabbing and must be reserved for very important details
On 2 June 2013 11:13, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
The latter should work just like
# aptitude why bluetooth bluez bluez-compat libbluetooth3
i bluetooth Suggests bluez-cups
p bluez-cupsDepends cups
p cups Suggests hplip
p hplip Suggests python-notify
i
Control: severity 133481 minor
Control: merge 133481 -1
On 1 June 2013 23:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi.
It would be nice when aptitude would use unicode characters for the trees in
the
dependency
On 2 June 2013 10:42, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
On Sun, 2013-06-02 at 09:25 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Do you have any complaint with the current drawing of tree nodes,
other than “its not the precise unicode graphing characters”?
Well not compliant... it's just
Michael Prokop m...@debian.org wrote:
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/foo.list contains something like:
deb https://$USER:$PASSWD@$MIRROR internal main
and because of confidential information ($USER/$PASSWD) the file is
read-only for root (600).
This is not a comment on the reported bug (not
Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-CC: aptitude-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
Dear ftpmasters
Please remove aptitude 0.6.9.1-1 in experimental. It is decided for
some time to abandon this branch, we do no longer support it.
The next release will use a higher version number,
On 29 May 2013 14:38, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Problems in Boost still cause aptitude to FTBFS with gcc-4.8. New
point release to be made available once these blocking bugs are fixed:
- http://bugs.debian.org/710210 in libboost1.53-dev
- http://bugs.debian.org/710211
On 16 May 2013 17:24, Lev Lamberov l.lambe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
2013/4/16 Lev Lamberov l.lambe...@gmail.com
Hello,
please, find enclosed the patch introducing russian snapshots and svg,
plus minor text update.
I've tried to send my patch containing several updates to translation
Control: found -1 0.6.8.2-1
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On 15 May 2013 16:45, Ralf Jung p...@ralfj.de wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
for around a month now, aptitude fails to download changelogs for many
packages,
including most (of not
Control: tags -1 - confirmed
On 15 May 2013 17:30, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
For a long time changelogs are accessible under
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/. As indicated by the new PTS
links these are now under
http://ftp-master.metadata.debian.org/changelogs
Hello
On 10 May 2013 09:04, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Severity: wishlist
The man page should note that reinstall doesn't fix missing files...
# mv /etc/apache2/conf-available/php5-cgi.conf
# aptitude reinstall php5-cgi
# ls ... not found
That is a
On 13 May 2013 12:24, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
On 10 May 2013 09:04, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.9.1-1
Severity: wishlist
The man page should note that reinstall doesn't fix missing files...
# mv /etc/apache2/conf-available/php5-cgi.conf
On 13 May 2013 12:34, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
OK, then maybe there should be a purge-reinstall command,
for the times when one
* doesn't want to remove any packages, so no worry about disturbing
dependencies.
* wants to totally refresh a package.
I'll see about adding an option for
Control: tags -1 = confirmed
Control: merge 421043 -1
On 9 May 2013 10:24, Christoph Anton Mitterer cales...@scientia.net wrote:
- If either New Packages is selected or anything completely outside the
New Packages-tree (e.g. something from Installed Packages
= behave as now, clean the
Control: block -1 by 137771
Control: tags -1 + confirmed
On 4 May 2013 23:35, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Severity: wishlist
It would be very nice if hold and keep could be extended
to work on
On 3 May 2013 04:56, Dmitrijs Ledkovs x...@debian.org wrote:
I have now tried building aptitude using ubuntu saucy chroot which has
gcc-4.8 and boost1.53. This resulted in the following build failure:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/5627193/
A patch for that was last month posted to aptitude-devel.
Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
[sub-optimal behaviour in vanilla lenny→squeeze upgrade]
I do guess you, the aptitude maintainers, want to close this bug, but I will
leave this to you.
Hi
Yes, thanks for bumping this across. I will leave it open for now as
the bug is well
On 29 April 2013 17:50, Holger Levsen hol...@layer-acht.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
you did not mail the bug, I guess that was intentional?
Actually, no. To fast to push send.
On Montag, 29. April 2013, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Yes, thanks for bumping this across. I will leave it open for now
On 21 April 2013 17:07, Paul Muster p...@muster.dyndns.info wrote:
Please tell me which additional information I should provide.
None. There is no bug in aptitude, the package is still available in
t-p-u and therefore not considered obsolete.
I am refiling to have it removed from t-p-u.
Control: retitle -1 RM: owncloud/4.0.4debian2-3.3
Control: reassign -1 release.debian.org
Control: user release.debian@packages.debian.org
Control: usertags -1 + rm
Release team
owncloud is recently removed from testing, please also remove from
t-p-u. (Wrong avenue? Please redirect me.)
On 11 April 2013 17:07, Lev Lamberov l.lambe...@gmail.com wrote:
Since our last conversation I recieved several patches for aptitude-ru-doc
from debina-l10n-russian team and integrated them into my github repository.
I haven't recieved any patches for two weeks, so I think that everything is
On 8 April 2013 22:02, nick black nick.bl...@sprezzatech.com wrote:
Daniel Hartwig left as an exercise for the reader:
It does not interest me to optimize at the level of e.g. read vs. mmap. It
is far more interesting to have reliable code that is simple to comprehend
and verify.
The next
[Moving to aptitude-devel@]
On 6 April 2013 22:05, nick black nick.bl...@sprezzatech.com wrote:
first things first: at least in command-line mode (i.e., outside of
fullscreen ncurses), could we defer reading package tags until doing so is
definitely necessary? this would save us a nice chunk
On 16 March 2013 15:32, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What exactly do you mean by typescript?
A terminal session log, such as that produced by the ‘script’ command.
For bug reporting, this should be complete enough to demonstrate and
On 17 March 2013 02:24, Harald Dunkel ha...@afaics.de wrote:
Hi Daniel,
I found a procedure to reproduce the problem by installing
and removing postgresql. Here is the script:
After running it I've got 2 new libraries that should have been removed
automatically:
Aptitude doesn't show the
On 8 March 2013 20:30, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Package: aptitude-doc-en
Severity: minor
Version: 0.6.8.2-1
Hi,
while trying to understand more of Aptitude's resolver and how to tweak
it, I noticed the following issues with the documentation, mostly in
On 9 March 2013 00:51, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thanks for the prompt reply.
Sure. Now that we have — in a sense — processed all the existing
bugs, it pays to keep on top of new ones :-).
Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 8 March 2013 20:30, Axel Beckert a...@debian.org wrote
On 4 March 2013 06:08, Daniel Dickinson csh...@neomailbox.net wrote:
On 03/03/13 06:16 AM, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 3 March 2013 17:56, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2013-03-03 09:45 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Using reinstall — rather than install — on the second attempt suggests
On 3 March 2013 11:04, Daniel Dickinson csh...@neomailbox.net wrote:
On 02/03/13 02:41 AM, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
On 2 March 2013 09:57, Daniel Dickinson csh...@neomailbox.net wrote:
This happens with any of the packages I have tried to reinstall. For
example, if ccrypt is already installed
On 3 March 2013 17:56, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2013-03-03 09:45 +0100, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
Right. So the situation, as I understand it, is this:
Starting with emacs23 _not installed_, you install ccrypt. Then you
attempt to install emacs23 and it fails due to some error you
On 2 March 2013 15:41, Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 March 2013 09:57, Daniel Dickinson csh...@neomailbox.net wrote:
This happens with any of the packages I have tried to reinstall. For
example, if ccrypt is already installed, the emacs23 amd64 23.4+1-4 will
fail to install
Control: tags -1 - pending
After working on the boost issue, I see that there is at least some
google-mock issues remaining:
download_progress.h:46:317: error: typedef
‘this_method_does_not_take_1_argument’ locally defined but not
used [-Werror=unused-local-typedefs]
On 2 March 2013 09:57, Daniel Dickinson csh...@neomailbox.net wrote:
This happens with any of the packages I have tried to reinstall. For
example, if ccrypt is already installed, the emacs23 amd64 23.4+1-4 will
fail to install. If you subsequently attempt a reinstall you will see
E: Internal
1 - 100 of 327 matches
Mail list logo
