On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:07:00PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > The way this garbage collection is implemented is one of the main > > dislikes I have about aptitude. Aptitude contains a database with > > packages that have been installed through aptitude; as such, it contains > > no information on packages that were installed through a different > > dpkg-frontend. Which is no problem in itself, except that aptitude > > assumes a package which has not been installed through aptitude is not > > wanted; this makes a transition from a different dpkg-frontend to > > aptitude cumbersome, to say the least. > > This behavior is obviously terrible, which is why aptitude doesn't > try to implement it. Ah. Oh. > Of course, as ccheney pointed out recently, there > are always bugs. Can you show me a case where, starting with no > aptitude state information, you run aptitude and get any package on > the system marked as "automatically installed"? (one exception is stuff > that really is automatically installed in order to perform the > upgrade-on-start) I can't. As said, I tried it only once, and it was a while ago. > I just tested this on my computer and it behaves as I expect. I > wonder if you somehow accidentally marked everything as automatic the > first time you used aptitude (or used a buggy version, although I don't > remember any released version with this particular bug), then saved > those states and forgot about it? That is possible. If what happened to me is not the intended behaviour, then please ignore my last mail :-) -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org "Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation." "So is my neck, stop it anyway!" -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature