On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:32:33 +0000 Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> wrote: > Looking at apt-cross, it should behave more like apt in this scenario - and another scenario too: apt-cross --status I'm thinking this should actually behave more like apt-cache show It currently behaves like dpkg --status The difference is that apt-cross should be querying the apt-cache, not /var/lib/dpkg/status. It should be offering the status of available packages to allow a comparison with the status of installed packages. I may reuse the -s option to apt-cross and rename --status as --show for clarity. This then means that apt-cross -L has no real role: if it's querying available packages, some of which are not installed, --list-files really cannot hope to achieve a lot. It's best left to dpkg-cross - just as apt does. I propose to drop -L. apt-cross -l also needs tweaking. I'd like to make it more like apt-cache pkgnames and less like dpkg -l. Most of these changes are needed to help emchain become smoother and less finicky. Some (like -l) are just "the line of least surprise". > Before I change the behaviour of the existing option in apt-cross > v0.0.4, would this cause a problem for anyone? > I've got a few other things to clear up in apt-cross - ensuring --update always fixes as many problems and poor configurations as possible - before apt-cross is finally ready for release. I'll probably hold off on upload to Debian until after the Etch freeze. No need for it in Etch, really. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpn0XPqBgDaP.pgp
Description: PGP signature