Even if there's a third, neutral, unmarked state - it's still a
problem in my eyes when users switch from dselect to aptitude.
It's not a problem if you tell aptitude what to do when you start using it.
How would I do that? Even if I wanted to go through all packages and
mark them, how
On Monday 01 August 2005 06:19, Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On (01/08/05 12:32), Adam Funk wrote:
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by this:
followed by a long list of packages, some of which
On (02/08/05 09:49), Jules Dubois wrote:
On Monday 01 August 2005 06:19, Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On (01/08/05 12:32), Adam Funk wrote:
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by this:
On (02/08/05 09:49), Jules Dubois wrote:
I suggest, rather than using 'h' for hold, using 'm' for mark as manually
installed for packages the OP is certain he wants to keep. In this way,
those packages and their dependencies are both protected and upgradable.
I just found another
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by this:
$ aptitude -s upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Reading task
On (01/08/05 12:32), Adam Funk wrote:
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by this:
$ aptitude -s upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree
Reading extended state information
Initializing
On 8/1/05, Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On (01/08/05 12:32), Adam Funk wrote:
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by this:
$ aptitude -s upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree
Reading
On 8/1/05, Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/1/05, Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On (01/08/05 12:32), Adam Funk wrote:
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by this:
$ aptitude -s upgrade
Reading
On (01/08/05 13:56), Bryan Donlan wrote:
On 8/1/05, Bryan Donlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/1/05, Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On (01/08/05 12:32), Adam Funk wrote:
Inspired by the advice on this group and the -s option, I'm trying out
aptitude. But I'm surprised by
Briefly, run aptitude in interactive mode - ie # aptitude
If you press g (only once), the proposed actions will be displayed, you
can then 'h' hold packages you don't want removed.
Since this is basically the issue I brought up a day or so earlier...
Why should users have to wade through a
On 8/1/05, Christian Pernegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Briefly, run aptitude in interactive mode - ie # aptitude
If you press g (only once), the proposed actions will be displayed, you
can then 'h' hold packages you don't want removed.
Since this is basically the issue I brought up a day
Aptitude shouldn't remove packages you've told it to install - but it
doesn't know whether packages installed through other means (apt-get,
dselect, dpkg -i, etc) were manually or automatically installed.
AFAIK I had only ever used aptitude on that system. Besides, why not
play it safe and
That's the point. _It_ (aptitude hasn't been told to install them.
This situation often arises when packages have been installed with
apt-get, in which case it's not aptitude's fault that _it_ doesn't know
that you want to install them.
I'd assumed that there were just two package states
On (01/08/05 19:17), Clive Menzies wrote:
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
From: Clive Menzies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:17:30 +0100
Subject: Re: Aptitude erroneously thinks many packages are unused and wants
to remove them.
On (01/08/05 13:56), Bryan Donlan wrote:
On
14 matches
Mail list logo
