Eddy wrote:
> What is ? I'm just stating a fact.
No, you're misinterpreting those facts.
> As I said before, I understand *why* aptitude gives it but that doesn't
> change the fact that it is incorrect.
No, it isn't incorrect. The error it gives is accurate for the infomation
*IT HAS*. The information is wrong, not the error. You don't like the error
that's your problem. You know how to fix the error.
> I never said I had a problem dealing with that situation. You pretended
> that aptitude was self explanatory and I gave you an example showing it
> is not. That you and I know how to react has nothing to do with it.
I found it self explanitory when it happened to me. Oh, it is marked
managed, it thinks it is unused, marked it manually installed, done. Your
problem, not aptitudes. That's like saying that something that logs to syslog
"doesn't explain why it fails to start" because you don't want to look in syslog.
> Normally I would thank you for telling me what to do (even though I knew
> it before but you couldn't know that). Unfortunately your pebkac gives a
> condescending ring to it all. Maybe you didn't mean it; I'm sorry that's
> how I resent it.
Because you, and Ron before you, are spreading BS. You're saying aptitude
doesn't do something it does. Don't like PEBKAC, don't be the problem.
>>> It will remove libgnutls11-dev because it has 4 missing dependencies.
>>> Well apt-get installing those show that they are installed with the
>>> latest versions; apt-get install libgnutls11-dev tells the same.
>> Are you sure?
> Definitely.
Apprently not. check again.
> But this proves my point again.
> A package is installed or it is not.
> Your providing a reason for aptitude not seeing it doesn't change the
> fact that the info provided by aptitude is incorrect.
The information provided by aptitude is indeed correct. You problem is
that you think "Gee, I have an Open Office spreadsheet, why doesn't Excel see
it?" Your problem, not aptitudes.
> I *know* that. You said aptitude displayed informative messages.
> In this case I just stated that it didn't display anything more then
> "these packages will be installed".
Yeah, and? You want to know it is a keypress away. Again, /you are the
problem/. Just because a program doesn't spoonfeed you the information
doesn't mean it the information isn't there. You want spoon-fed, go back to
Word with Clippy.
> Did you read the end of my previous message ?
Yes. Did you try to understand mine? Apparently not.
> I have read the doc !
Well then, you're just being intentionally obtuse.
> In your previous message you said "Since aptitude does tell you exactly
> why it is removing packages if the user cannot take in that information
> it is PEBKAC. "
> Here you say that by reading the aptitude help one can understand.
> It is not the same!
Yes it is. It is like saying that vim is a lousy editor because you can't
edit anything. Whereas anyone who has read the basic help for vim would know
how to get into and out of insert mode. IE, and this is the point you sail
right past so pardon me making it quite blunt, *READING THE BASIC HELP IS THE
FIRST STEP A USER /MUST/ TAKE BEFORE BITCHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM. IF SAID USER
HASN'T READ THE HELP THEN THEY...ARE...THE...PROBLEM.* Clear?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature