[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#475243: 100% successful install on Fujitsu 2110 lifebook

Hash: SHA1

Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:

> On Thursday 10 April 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:
>> > On Wednesday 09 April 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
>> >> Also, when apt-install is fixed to complain about queued items that
>> >> fail to install, won't it start complaining about acpi if it's not on
>> >> the netinst?
>> >
>> > I have a half-finished patch that does that, but it depends on how
>> > apt-install is called. It will only complain about packages that were
>> > queued with 'apt-install -r'.
>> I thought about Joey's comment and I believe that every call to
>> apt-install should mean that a package is required. So the package
>> will be installed in all installation methods. This makes the same
>> installation result on all available methods them.
> I assume that this means you have done a complete inventory of all cases 
> (and for all architectures) where we call apt-update and whether or not the 
> package really is required?
> If not, then this is a completely empty statement that I'll happily ignore.

I think that this kind of answer adds nothing to the thread and I do
believe we don't need to go throught all the internals right now but
talk about the apt-install concept and what it represents for the
enduser. I'll focus on the discussion and it's up to you to ignore it
or not. I hope other people doesn't ignore it.

A careful look and testing would be required for sure but I doubt this
is the best time to look into it before we get some agreement on this

Currently apt-install usage differs from this concept and I'm aware of
it; is this what is more logical to enduser?

I think that different installation methods shouldn't have different
final results and this looks logical to me. For this to be done, the
only way I see is if all apt-install calls are "required to be

What use cases do you see that apt-install calls should be used as
"non-required" action?

- -- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
- ---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
- ---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>


Reply to: