On 2015-12-06 at 07:01, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 07:58:07AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: >> Will it still be possible to update just the apt-file index, >> separately from updating the main package index? I see no >> indication in the current apt(8) man page of a way to tell apt to >> do this. > > You can't update individual indexes at the moment. The question is > why you would want to as from my point of view that was a pretty > annoying technical detail that I had to run two (or three [debtags] > or more) commands to get all the metadata. Probably because I forgot > at least one or some data was newer/older than other parts… so what > is the usecase exactly, maybe we can come up with something then There's no real practical use case for me at the moment, aside from the principle of retaining flexibility and user control. There are a few not-practical cases, though nothing I'm managing to remember well enough to articulate, but in large part this is a matter of "I've gotten used to being able to do it, so even though it would/will be nice to not have to do it, I still want the option of doing it if I so choose". > (as I am sightly lying, it is actually possible – just not very > accessible for a user and it would have issues so I am not going to > say how here) In public, where it can be discovered later by people who won't know or be in a position to even judge (much less handle) those issues, you mean? I can understand that, but I'd like to know how it would be done (and what the issues might be, of course), so if there's a chance to go over that elsewhere - e.g. by direct mail - at some point I'd be interested. >> I don't use 'apt update', but rather 'apt-get update', paired with >> a separate 'apt-file update'. While unifying the two commands would >> be useful for those who use apt, it would also seem to leave those >> who don't with at most three options: switch to apt, stop updating >> the apt-file index, or deal with redundant updates to the package >> index (which might quality as "switch to apt" in practice). > > There is no fundamental difference between apt and apt-get, they are > not only maintained by the very same people, but also use the same > data and code – the difference is just in a few options which have a > different default value (try "apt-config dump Binary::apt" for a > list). > > So, use whatever you prefer and use something different a second > later. Er... the entire reason I started running 'apt-file update' in the first place is because running 'apt-get update' was not, or did not appear to be, updating the index which was used by apt-file. (Now that I've gotten used to it, I have occasionally taken advantage of the ability to do one but not the other.) So if 'apt-get update' now updates the apt-file index as well, A: this appears to be new since that time, and B: it is far from obvious at runtime, since at minimum it certainly does not display similar output to what I see from 'apt-file update'. If that's not what you mean, then I fail to see how this is a response to what I wrote... -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature