Re: dselect oddities
On Fri, 15 May 1998, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 1998 11:04:55 -0500 (CDT), Nathan E Norman wrote:
> >But isn't that the point of a packaging system? This way, bug-fixes,
> >security fixes, etc. are integrated into the system simply by running
> >dselect every now and then. deselect *does* present you with a list of
> >what it's going to update (or more correctly, updated packages).
> Right, and the person should *CHOOSE* which packages are to be updated.
> This automatatic unless otherwise specified path reaks of Microsoft.
> >If you want everything on hold, then place everything on hold :)
> That is not feesable for 2-300 packages.
Go to the select screen, hit 'o', go to the top of the updated packages
section (the header), hit '='. There, all the updated packages are on
> >I'm not trying to be flippant, but you still haven't listed a specific
> >example of where the default behavior is wrong, so I'm not sure where
> >you're coming from.
> Yes, I have. Placing unstable directories into the path to keep up with
> current versions of applications while not having to worry about other things
> being updated. IE, having the *OPTION* to choose to upgrade, not to upgrade
That's what placing packages on hold is good for. There are simple ways
of marking everything on hold if you want to. Don't change the documented
and standard behavior, I assure you that I'll be very put out if dselect
suddenly stops upgrading my system when I run it.
Scott K. Ellis <email@example.com> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com