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

Re: console-apt

On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 11:07:37PM +0200, ressu@uusikaupunki.fi was heard to say:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 03:42:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 10:12:20PM +0200, ressu@uusikaupunki.fi wrote:
> > > although, i have to agree, it was wrong to remove console-apt from stable, what was the reason again? (some coredump?)
> > 
> > Release critical bugs.
> > 
> > Fans of console-apt did not exhibit sufficient interest in the package to
> > help fix its bugs when they had a chance; it's a bit late to start
> > complaining now.
> i'm not complaining, but just wondering, is it common to end up with a
> orphaned frontend to apt, i do hope that aptitude wont be dumped!

  I'm not planning to, but this semester could be a bit of work, so the
rate of change of aptitude may decrease in the next month or two..
  (or: dcoding/dt=1/(drealwork/dt))

> last time i checked gnome-apt, there hadn't been changes in ages!, last change
> was to compile it on some new libapt.. 

  Yeah, this is a nuisance..

> but this brings even more pressure to aptitude makers, they should now
> improve aptitude with the advantages of console-apt, and if possible update
> the version in potato... (it's too late already, but i think for the next
> update to potato =)

  Pressure?  Makers?  There's just me, and I do have a finite amount of
time. :)  I'm trying to add stuff as fast as I can, but if I add it too quickly
I'll get bogged down in hacks and cruft; things are already a little on the
disorganized side [1], and I'd prefer to decrease entropy if possible :)  (the
next release will be a big step in this direction; I've reorganized the source
tree and tried to make a lot of stuff cleaner)


  [1] this is almost a given with me, of course

"...vicious Actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden
 because they are Hurtful, the Nature of Man alone consider'd"
  -- from the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

Reply to: