Re: gnome won't uninstall because I messed up dpkg by mixing and matching apt-get and aptitude incorrectly (used to be Re: upgrading in sid)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/02/08 11:23, charlie derr wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 12/31/07 15:48, charlie derr wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>> Of course, I would do all this from the (real) console, not a GNOME
>>>> terminal window.
>>> you're just chicken :-]
>>
>> Real Men use the console. I'm not sure what Real Women use.
>>
>
> Yeah, I used to think that way too. But I find that a full-featured X
> environment is definitely preferrable to the command-line when I have an
X is great for allowing you to have lots of xterms. Esspecially
when 24x80 isn't optimal.
Proportional fonts and icons are also *sometimes* useful. Mainly to
be able to cram more information onto the screen. But that's about it.
Oh yeah, and colors. ANSI colors don't look very good on a white
background. (I prefer black on white for the same reason newpapers
and books have black ink on white paper. Can you imagine trying to
read a black newspaper with white ink? Yech. Of course, I know
that I'm in the significant minority.)
> option (yeah I *can* do everything from a single console if I have to
Yech. That's what VTs are for...
> (as long as screen and emacs are installed), but I'm a lot more
> efficient with a mouse and graphics, etc...). I'm at the point where I
> really don't believe that very many folks are actually browsing the
> internet regularly with a text-only browser from a command line. But
> who knows, maybe there're more Real Men out there than I'm guessing...
Because most Web Designers are not Real Mean, and thus pollute web
pages with too much graphical whooey.
>>> (i'm still in the same original openbox session I started in a couple
>>> days ago (my one concession was to not do this from my usual busy
>>> (50-100 application windows spread across 4 desktops) KDE session))
>>>
>>> i did take the extra step of doing my upgrade from within a screen
>>> session (inside konsole, not gnome-terminal)
>>>
>>>> Lastly, I'd *never* use aptitude.
>>> It appears (to me at least) that that's an irrational bias you have
>>> there.
>>
>> Irrational? I was last irrational in... in... well, it's been a
>> *long* time since I've been irrational.
>>
>> aptitude (and wajig) likes to be more than slightly aggressive in
>> what else it wants to remove when you remove a "top level" (not
>> meta-) package.
>
> ahh, right, I do remember that argument being used (in favor of refusing
> to switch out apt-get for aptitude in general), but I never really
> bought it -- first of all, I found it helpful to have packages pruned
> out when I probably never used them,
Doing what the app wants, without asking the user, is the Microsoft Way.
> and for the odd case where
> something I wanted was removed, I never minded simply reinstalling once
> I realized it was missing -- also, my understanding is that this is a
> configurable option that can be set in some config file to act any way
> one wants (the problem was the people were complaining about aptitude's
> default setting being problematic -- seemed like a really nitpicky
> complaint to me if it's actually a tuneable parameter and not hard-coded
> to lock one in to that behavior)
If you're going to write an app which is named like the original
app, and has command options like the original app, so that users of
the original app will use the new app, doesn't it sound reasonable
that the new app have defaults similar to the old app?
>> Recent versions of apt-get strike a nice balance by listing the
>> packages that become orphanable by a "remove", and helpfully
>> suggests running "apt-get autoremove". And just "install" the ones
>> you want to keep, so that apt-get stops pestering/reminding you to
>> autoremove them.
>>
>
> Do you really feel like apt-get is fully supported?
If it wasn't, then auto-remove wouldn't have been added.
> The last things I
> remember seeing from developers on the lists (not even very recently)
> seemed to indicate that use of apt-get is now (and has been for some
> time) deprecated. Of course, if you're not running sid/unstable, that
> might not yet be true for the version you're using, but...
Been running Sid for years. apt-get has never let me down.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian
because I hate vegetables!"
unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHe+EWS9HxQb37XmcRAu1MAJwPGr8pTXfQ5DsOjZ/0KhSYTn2sUwCdF3EY
VBHjMcR0gHUMnhIzg0LXqK8=
=FB8n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: