Hello Brian,
In any case, it shouldn't take more than a couple of lines added to
installed.db to inform setup of your local packages, and from then on it
should work as expected, without having to uncheck anything.
Well, I think I can live with it anyway. Many thank for your detailed
advice.
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 04:43:35AM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
3. Create a dummy package with version 99.999 or something so that setup
will always think that what you have installed is newer than anything
available. I think this could be as simple as just editing
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hi,
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely excluded these form upgrade
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hi,
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely excluded these form upgrade
Dave Korn wrote:
Or you could untick the box that says Install these packages to meet
dependencies. Did that screen not appear?
Yes, now after I have started it the second time to fix the broken
installation, I see this checkbox for the very first time. Not really
a good place for a
Brian Dessent wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
I have selected some packages checked in the partial view which packages
are active, then when installation strted several packages were
installed which were not selected. E.g. autoconf, automake related and
such.
Since I explicitely excluded
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
be nice. And maybe make it optional, that is not checked by default.
Pardon me for being blunt, but that's absurd. The whole point of adding
that screen was that users kept managing to select a package and then
deselect required dependencies somehow, ending up with a
Brian Dessent wrote:
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
be nice. And maybe make it optional, that is not checked by default.
In the vast majority of cases continuing with missing dependencies is
the wrong thing to do, so why should it be the default? Why should the
default reflect a use case that is
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Previously there was no nag. I deslected some important package and
was lost. Now a hint is displayed, one could tell the user: There
are important packages missing in your selection, do you really want
to be that stupid? To add these packages automatically hit the
10 matches
Mail list logo
