Em Seg, 2006-01-09 às 11:40 +0100, Richard Bos escreveu:
> Hmm, I get a strange feeling reading this. Smart is better than apt in the
> future and apt is left out of suse now? This clearly states that suse left
You missinterpreted my comment. I said that if you join the list, share
you though
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:33:05PM +0100, Christoph Thiel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Anders Johansson wrote:
>
> > On Monday 09 January 2006 11:40, Richard Bos wrote:
> > > This clearly states that suse left apt out of distro to soon.
> >
> > huh? When was it ever in?
>
> apt-rpm was part of S
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Monday 09 January 2006 11:40, Richard Bos wrote:
> > This clearly states that suse left apt out of distro to soon.
>
> huh? When was it ever in?
apt-rpm was part of SUSE Linux 10.0, but has been dropped with the
incorporation of SMART (and YUM) a
On Monday 09 January 2006 11:40, Richard Bos wrote:
> This clearly states that suse left
> apt out of distro to soon.
huh? When was it ever in?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL P
Op zondag 8 januari 2006 23:45, schreef Mauricio Teixeira:
> You're invited to join the mailing list and share your thoughts. I'm
> sure the way Smart is being developed you could even get better results
> than with APT in the future.
Hmm, I get a strange feeling reading this. Smart is better tha
Op zondag 8 januari 2006 23:40, schreef Mauricio Teixeira:
> > I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on SMART
> > as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a mature package
>
> So very true. If you always have apt available, there would be less
> people testi
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 15:24 +0100, Clayton escreveu:
> columns... Package and Version. What does this tell me? The version
> available or the version installed? It doesn't say (although from my
If you mean "Hide non-upgrades" it's quite easy to understand that the
version show is the available
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 15:04 +0100, Clayton escreveu:
> 1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as
Issue a request on: http://tracker.labix.org/
> until I fired up Synaptic, and the very first thing Synaptic did was pop
> up a window telling me there were multiple versions o
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 01:03 +0100, Jens Nixdorf escreveu:
> present state definitely not a replacement for apt/synaptic. I dont see
> any advantage of smart-gui over synaptic, so i will not use it.
Smart developers are still working hard to provide the best package
management possible, in the s
Em Sex, 2006-01-06 às 00:57 +0100, Christoph Thiel escreveu:
> be much better. One option could be to just call rpm instead of using
> python-rpm to perform the installation of packages (like YaST does it ;)).
That wouldn't solve the real issue: cache. This is what makes Smart slow
most of the t
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:00:11 +, Marcus Cooper wrote:
>My second is, is smart supposed to superceed YaST, to be honest I'm
>not really sure
It's not supposed to superseed YaST as YaST is *much* more then just a
package manager.
Philipp
-
On 06/01/06, Eberhard Moenkeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> You missed the point.
> Here an "old" tool gets discarded before the "new" tool is ready.
>
Two points,
One is having experiences many years of Novell's admin tools this
really won't surprise me. Yea I know openSUSE isn't rea
Hi,
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Silviu Marin-Caea wrote:
On Friday 06 January 2006 17:15, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue
supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory.
As I said before, as long as there is an "o
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 15:24 +0100, Clayton wrote:
> >> 1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic
> >>and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this
> >>really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
> >
> > I don't
On Friday 06 January 2006 17:15, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
> >> So then let's hope for a better future for smart, and please continue
> >> supporting apt until then. At least below tne unsupported directory.
> >
> > As I said before, as long as there is an "official" apt version, SMART
> > won't
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Aschwin Marsman wrote:
> > >> 1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic
> > >>and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this
> > >>really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
> > >
> > > I d
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Clayton wrote:
> >> 1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic
> >>and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this
> >>really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
> >
> > I don't understand. C
Hi,
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on
SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a
mature package manager(tm) then. Let's face it: As long as there is
>> 1. It doesn't show me what version I already have installed (as Synaptic
>>and Aptitude do). To me this is somewhat of a "deal breaker"... this
>>really needs to be included in Smart-gui to make it useful/usable.
>
> I don't understand. Could you please provide a screenshot or a more
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Clayton wrote:
> > So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you
> > please share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I
> > guess Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART.
>
> The two grumbles I have about smart at this point are:
>
Am Freitag, 6. Januar 2006 14:49 schrieb Christoph Thiel:
> So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you
> please share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I
> guess Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART.
Yes, you're right, only nagging is not a good
> So, if you don't like smart-gui in it's current state, could you please
> share your dislikes -- otherwise it might never get better. I guess
> Gustavo will be happy to get feedback on SMART.
The two grumbles I have about smart at this point are:
1. It doesn't show me what version I already
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Eberhard Moenkeberg wrote:
[...]
> > I would rather like to stick with SMART and get a much testing on
> > SMART as possible. Because at the end of the day, we will have a
> > mature package manager(tm) then. Let's face it: As long as there is
> > apt, nobody is going to us
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Jens Nixdorf wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 22:33 schrieb Richard Bos:
>
> > Perhaps apt can still be provided via the online repository (not on
> > the CDs) as a fallback in case SMART does not performs as expected...?
>
> This is an idea which i can support, even i
Hi,
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Christoph Thiel wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
Op donderdag 5 januari 2006 10:37, schreef Christoph Thiel:
With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the
way
Are you definately sure that smart performs as well as apt did?
Well,
Am Donnerstag, 5. Januar 2006 22:33 schrieb Richard Bos:
> Perhaps apt can still be
> provided via the online repository (not on the CDs) as a fallback in
> case SMART does not performs as expected...?
This is an idea which i can support, even if its for another reason: I
prefer to work with a m
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
> Op donderdag 5 januari 2006 10:37, schreef Christoph Thiel:
> > With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the
> > way
>
> Are you definately sure that smart performs as well as apt did?
Well, I never used apt intensively, but yes,
Op donderdag 5 januari 2006 10:37, schreef Christoph Thiel:
> With RPM 4.4.2 and SMART 0.41 things have gotten much better by the way
Are you definately sure that smart performs as well as apt did? What I read
on this ML is that SMART uses a lot of memory (too much) in case many
packages are to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Christian Boltz wrote:
> Am Montag, 2. Januar 2006 08:50 schrieb Daniel Bertolo:
> > I am looking for a way to upgrade from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1 using apt.
> > But if I edit sources.list (change to SuSE/10.1-i386) and I do
> > "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade", it woul
Hello,
Am Montag, 2. Januar 2006 08:50 schrieb Daniel Bertolo:
> I am looking for a way to upgrade from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1 using apt.
> But if I edit sources.list (change to SuSE/10.1-i386) and I do
> "apt-get update" and "apt-get dist-upgrade", it would work, but it
> would uninstall "apt" and "ap
Hi
I am looking for a way to upgrade from SUSE 10.0 to 10.1 using apt. But if I
edit sources.list (change to SuSE/10.1-i386) and I do "apt-get update" and
"apt-get dist-upgrade", it would work, but it would uninstall "apt" and
"apt-libs". Apt tells me that this would be harmful and that I do no
31 matches
Mail list logo
