Re: potato -> woody upgrade not smooth...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> Em 11 Jul 2001 11:06:17 -0400
> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> escreveu:
> > The Apt developers have I think rightly argued that this would be a
> > layering violation. apt-get was never really intended as the primary
> > packaging tool that a lot of users would use. The hope was that
> > people would use tools like aptitude or console-apt.
>
> well, they're not as easy and as practical as apt-get install...
Besides, it's not because something is not intended to do so that it must
not be used for something like that.
> > However people really seem to want a CLI tool. It's not clear how to
> > deal with recommends well in a CLI.
> hmmm it should *at least* show something like:
>
> "Package foo suggests: packg1, packg2, packg3"
>
> and asking:
>
> "Would you like to install those?"
>
> or even:
>
> "Would you like to select the ones you wish to install?"
That's not a good thing for a command-line tool. If you do so, it's no
longer a command-line tool. Apt-get would lose its power as a command-line
tool if this would be done.
Better would be an option like --install-recommends or --install-suggests
or something similar. The packages that get installed because of
suggestions or recommendations could also be explicitely mentioned when -u
is given as an option (or another option for that -- doesn't really
matter).
Or better yet, --install-suggests and --ignore-recommends; recommendations
should be "stronger" than suggestions, remember...
Of course, when removing a package that is recommended by another package,
apt-get should just ignore that fact, since it doesn't depend on it.
> then asking a Y/N prompt for each package...
Exactly how would you see that happen in a cronjob?
It's still a command-line tool, and automatization under unices has always
been done using command-line tools. I don't think this would be a good
idea.
<snip>
--
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas in belgium
www.debian.org
resistance is futile, you will be packaged...
Reply to: