It seems that purge does not work also:
$ sudo aptitude purge alacarte
The following packages will be REMOVED:
alacarte{p}
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 05:13:48PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Apr 09, 2013, at 10:40 AM, LD 'Gus' Landis wrote:
>
> >Personally, I look forward to the day of the return of the 24x80
> >CRT... but know I am in the minority.. for me the GUI is only
> >something that gets in the way of me being
On 04/09/2013 10:25 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
For computer enthusiasts and power users, the CLI is great. But for
the person who sees their computing device as a window to other
activities, it is a huge distraction.
Let's keep enthusiasts off Ubuntu, then?
vQ
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing li
On Apr 09, 2013, at 10:40 AM, LD 'Gus' Landis wrote:
>Personally, I look forward to the day of the return of the 24x80
>CRT... but know I am in the minority.. for me the GUI is only
>something that gets in the way of me being productive.
X is the bagel to the lox of Emacs.
-Barry
signature.asc
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Brett Cornwall
wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 12:17 PM, Alexandre Strube wrote:
>>
>> Why?
>
>
> Because aptitude is the successor to apt-get, endorsed by the community that
> does all the packaging for this OS, is more stable, and has better
> dependency handling (indeed,
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:25:22PM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Holtzman's message of 2013-04-09 12:33:05 -0700:
> > .snip
> >
> > > On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
> > > there is no need for that for non-developers.
Excerpts from Robert Holtzman's message of 2013-04-09 12:33:05 -0700:
> .snip
>
> > On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
> > there is no need for that for non-developers.
>
> That's one of the more elitist, swinishly arrogant statements I've
On 04/09/2013 04:01 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Who removed your choice?
Defaults are simply opinions, not rules. Install your divergent choices,
and be happy.
I have to really emphasize, especially as I was the topic creator, that
I was discussing the possibility of replacing apt-get with aptit
Excerpts from Dale Amon's message of 2013-04-09 12:14:40 -0700:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:49:41PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > and why does that limit your future ? do you expect us to rip out
> > firefox or xterm from the archive ?
>
> No, I don't expect you to do anything. I am just sad a
Excerpts from Robert Holtzman's message of 2013-04-09 12:20:40 -0700:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>
> snip...
> >
> > just shipping it alongside would go against ubuntus policy of avoiding
> > duplication in default installs.
>
> Thereby
hi,
On Di, 2013-04-09 at 12:20 -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>
> snip...
> >
> > just shipping it alongside would go against ubuntus policy of avoiding
> > duplication in default installs.
>
> Thereby removing
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:00:29PM -0400, Adam Wolfe wrote:
> unsubscribe
Almost! But not quite... The instructions you need can be found in the
email you quoted:
> On 04/09/2013 11:58 AM, ubuntu-devel-discuss-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
>Thereby removing one more user choice. Choice is one of the bedrocks of
>linux. Thanks guys. That's one of the main reasons I dumped ubuntu and
>went to debian.
Have aptitude is a plus, you don't remove any choice:
if you want, do:sudo apt-get install aptitudeThe thing I hate is the proxy
config
.snip
> On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
> there is no need for that for non-developers.
That's one of the more elitist, swinishly arrogant statements I've heard
lately. Are you actually discouraging new users from learning linux?
Why? T
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:45:25PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
snip...
>
> just shipping it alongside would go against ubuntus policy of avoiding
> duplication in default installs.
Thereby removing one more user choice. Choice is one of the bedrocks of
linux. Thanks guys. T
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:49:41PM +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> and why does that limit your future ? do you expect us to rip out
> firefox or xterm from the archive ?
No, I don't expect you to do anything. I am just sad about all
the functionality of X windows that has been left behind. Simple
hi,
On Di, 2013-04-09 at 11:22 -0700, Dale Amon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:37:33PM +0200, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
> > Where does this conmviction come from?
> >
> > On 04/09/2013 02:21 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> > >On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
>
On 9 April 2013 19:25, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 9 April 2013 13:13, J Fernyhough wrote:
> > Just from my own humble experience, there have been numerous times when
> > aptitude has been able to resolve a package situation that apt-get would
> > simply refuse to entertain; apt-get would just say
On 9 April 2013 13:13, J Fernyhough wrote:
> Just from my own humble experience, there have been numerous times when
> aptitude has been able to resolve a package situation that apt-get would
> simply refuse to entertain; apt-get would just say it couldn't do anything
> and exit. While on the one
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 02:37:33PM +0200, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Where does this conmviction come from?
>
> On 04/09/2013 02:21 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
> >there is no need for that for non-developers.
> >
> >Regards,
>
Excerpts from LD 'Gus' Landis's message of 2013-04-09 09:40:37 -0700:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
>
> > Where does this conmviction come from?
> >
> > On 04/09/2013 02:21 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >
> >> On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command
The situation seems to be:
Both apt-get and aptitude is far from perfect.
apt-get: more secure and stupid
aptitude: more smart and dangerous
Since apt-get has been regarded as default for long, let's keep it?
But seriously, can we fix the known issues in apt-get or aptitude?
They need some impr
On 9 April 2013 17:27, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 12:19 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
>
>>
>> This is actually being debated over on debian-devel as we type. So
>> some piece of text from the Debian FAQ that simply hasn't been updated
>> in a long time doesn't trump anything.
>>
>
On 04/09/2013 12:57 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
It was never meant as a successor.
My mistake.
"endorsed by the community" - not true. I'm a Debian Developer and
Ubuntu Core Dev and I don't endorse either aptitude nor apt-get.
Well, I'm going by the goddamn page that's been there for years
hi,
On Di, 2013-04-09 at 12:53 -0400, Brett Cornwall wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2013 12:45 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>
>
>
> Forget it - forget it. One could have said that all of Ubuntu's software
> depended on apt-get from the get-go. But instead I get a barrage of
> messages of people just tellin
On 04/09/2013 12:53 PM, Riccardo Padovani wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Brett Cornwall
wrote:
On 04/09/2013 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It is in no way a successor to apt.
I did _not say_ it was a successor to apt. Forget I ever brought anything
up.
On Tue, Apr 9, 201
On 04/09/2013 12:54 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Debian endorsements or discouragements for aptitude are not very
relevant for what ubuntu should ship by default on ubuntu desktop.
And apt-get is the default upgrade tool in debian.
[1]
http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/release-notes/c
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Brett Cornwall
wrote:
>
>
> On 04/09/2013 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> It is in no way a successor to apt.
>>
> I did _not say_ it was a successor to apt. Forget I ever brought anything
> up.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Brett Cornwall
wrote:
>
On 04/09/2013 12:45 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
Forget it - forget it. One could have said that all of Ubuntu's software
depended on apt-get from the get-go. But instead I get a barrage of
messages of people just telling me that my thought was stupid.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
U
On 04/09/2013 12:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
It is in no way a successor to apt.
I did _not say_ it was a successor to apt. Forget I ever brought
anything up.
Scott K
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
htt
It is consistent to the dumbing down of our society, which
is not necessarily a bad thing. All modern cars are built for
"idiots" to use. If these same "idiots" think they know how
to use a computer (as they think that they are really drivers)
then there is some overall benefit.
The prices of c
hi,
On Di, 2013-04-09 at 12:24 -0400, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 12:17 PM, Alexandre Strube wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Because aptitude is the successor to apt-get, endorsed by the community
> that does all the packaging for this OS, is more stable, and has better
> dependency handling (inde
On Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:24:47 PM Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 12:17 PM, Alexandre Strube wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Because aptitude is the successor to apt-get, endorsed by the community
> that does all the packaging for this OS, is more stable, and has better
> dependency handling (indee
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Waclaw Kusnierczyk wrote:
> Where does this conmviction come from?
>
> On 04/09/2013 02:21 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
>> On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
>> there is no need for that for non-developers.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dmi
On Tuesday, April 09, 2013 12:27:28 PM Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 12:19 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
> > This is actually being debated over on debian-devel as we type. So
> > some piece of text from the Debian FAQ that simply hasn't been updated
> > in a long time doesn't trump an
On 04/09/2013 12:19 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
This is actually being debated over on debian-devel as we type. So
some piece of text from the Debian FAQ that simply hasn't been updated
in a long time doesn't trump anything.
So the reason for not even considering this as an option is be
On 04/09/2013 12:17 PM, Alexandre Strube wrote:
Why?
Because aptitude is the successor to apt-get, endorsed by the community
that does all the packaging for this OS, is more stable, and has better
dependency handling (indeed, promotes better dependency setting). It
makes no sense to keep a l
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
wrote:
>> I beg to differ:
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-pkgtools.en.html
>>
>> Official Debian docs, section 8.1.3 - aptitude:
>>
>> "Note that aptitude is the preferred program for daily package management
>> from console".
Why?
2013/4/9 Brett Cornwall
> I'm trying to get it changed in Ubuntu.
--
[]
Alexandre Strube
su...@ubuntu.com
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 04/09/2013 11:57 AM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
ranting wont get you anywhere ...
That wasn't my intention.
aptitude is not the recommended tool in ubuntu and never was (at least
in the 9 years i work on ubuntu) ... if it is recommended anywhere that
is definitely wrong and this recommendation s
ted tools ...
ciao
oli
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/2013040
On Di, 2013-04-09 at 11:29 -0400, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 08:21 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
> > Maybe I was not very explicit - all console applications are "niche"
> > on the Ubuntu (gui) Desktop. And vice versa, gui-desktop applications
> > are nice on the Ubuntu (console) Server
> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 11:29:04 -0400
> From: brettcornw...@lavabit.com
> To: dmitrij.led...@ubuntu.com; ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> Subject: Re: Aptitude installed by default on 13.10?
>
> On 04/09/2013 08:21 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
> > Maybe I was not very explicit - all cons
On 04/09/2013 08:21 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
Maybe I was not very explicit - all console applications are "niche"
on the Ubuntu (gui) Desktop. And vice versa, gui-desktop applications
are nice on the Ubuntu (console) Server.
We have aptitude seeded where console is the default interface.
On
unsubscribe
On 04/09/2013 08:00 AM, ubuntu-devel-discuss-requ...@lists.ubuntu.com wrote:
Send Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list submissions to
ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinf
hi,
On Di, 2013-04-09 at 13:21 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> We have aptitude seeded where console is the default interface.
>
> On ubuntu-desktop the default interface is unity with preferred
> package management using:
> - dash application scope
> - software updater
> - software center
>
on
Where does this conmviction come from?
On 04/09/2013 02:21 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
On Ubuntu Desktop we want to discourage usage of command line =) as
there is no need for that for non-developers.
Regards,
Dmitrijs.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu
On 9 April 2013 12:45, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 06:31 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
>
>> Aptitude is a fairly niche and highly technical package.
>
>
>
> I beg to differ:
>
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-faq/ch-pkgtools.en.html
>
> Official Debian docs, section 8.1.3 - a
On 8 April 2013 17:46, Brett Cornwall wrote:
> In revisions past, Ubuntu's CDs did not have enough space to accommodate
> aptitude and apt-get. Now that we have moved on to DVDs I feel it would be a
> worthy investment to include aptitude by default, especially since it is
> Debian's 'proper' pack
Thanks for the quick answer, the patch is already here
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hedgewars/+bug/1073730
Just one clarification, this patch changes the build behavior for every
architecture, but still builds fine on both amd64 and i386.
As upstream suggested, if the patch really fi
On 9 April 2013 09:58, Gianfranco Costamagna
wrote:
> Hi developers, I'm posting here a launchpad question, I hope you could help
> me in solve it.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/226103
>
File a bug with a patch / debdiff attached and subscribe Ubuntu
Sponsors
Hi developers, I'm posting here a launchpad question, I hope you could help me
in solve it.
Thanks
https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/226103
Gianfranco
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://list
52 matches
Mail list logo
