> Maybe aptitude is better. Maybe someone has to write a better command-line > tool to do a superset of apt-get's current capabilities. But that won't be > me, I don't have the time, and I suspect I don't have the skills (right now) > either :( This is exactly why I wrote Feta[1]. Unfortunately, so far, help from actual Debian Developers has been far between and usually unresponsive (I won't name names, but if you're reading this, you told me "up to a week" before it appears on mirrors, after I sent you a release to package on November 18th). Feta has support for suggests and recommends (currently in the plugins tarball; the plugins are included with the program in the CVS version), support for the "console-like readline functionality" mentioned in a reply to this post), and things like a 'hold' command, as well as a way to teach users how to use the underlying APT infrastructure directly; unlike Aptitude or Deity, Feta only uses existing dpkg/apt programs to do its work (20% the complexity for 80% of the functionality ;). If I sound slightly bitter, yes I am. This is probably caused by the fact that I see people reimplementing parts of Feta in an inferior manner[3], because I tried to avoid tooting my own horn and letting the word spread by itself after an initial announcement[2]. Instead, I got let down by Debian developers not returning contact, and not showing interest in a tool that: - Solves a (many) problem(s) that come up frequently on Debian discussion boards and mailing lists (e.g. this one, right now). - Allows users to extend it to perform any other packaging tricks they want in a simple manner (just by using a shell script, if they want). - Does so using existing Debian tools, but providing a simpler, more consistent, and more powerful interface. - Teaches users directly, without a "RTFM" (although, CVS Feta[4] has RTFFetaM, RTFM, and the teaching mode. Honestly, the only major thing holding up a 1.3.0 release is the lack of documentation; please read the Savannah page[5] to see how you can help.) - Has existed in a mostly stable (and always useful) state since July, and had a public announcement (through debian-devel and DWN) at that time. So, yes. Someone does have to write such a command line tool. Someone has done so. Now the question is, why isn't Debian (the organization) interested in it? References: 1. http://www.sacredchao.net/software/feta/index.shtml 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200107/msg01614.html 3. http://www.debianplanet.org/article.php?sid=608 but I'm sure there are others as well. This is no slam to the author (who sent me a nice Feta patch just 3 days later :), but rather a specific observation of the general problem that third party Debian packaging tools are not usually packaged or made easily available for Debian (the exception I can think of, Wajig, is similar to Feta, but is more a swiss army knife of Debian stuff, where Feta is a swiss army chainsaw of Debian packaging). 4. http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/feta/ 5. http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/feta/ -- - Joe Wreschnig <piman@sacredchao.net> - http://www.sacredchao.net "What I did was justified because I had a policy of my own... It's okay to be different, to not conform to society." -- Chen Kenichi, Iron Chef Chinese
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part