[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 答复: Stunned by aptitude.

On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 02:01:44PM +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does
> not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know. This gives
> it no right to erease all information stored locally.
> It is like, if my mobile was broken today, my wife could not contact with
> me, so she should think that I DIE? And call the cops, and throw out all my
> staff? It is not right, Mr.
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo@ursine.ca] 
> 发送时间: 2008年7月2日 12:46
> 收件人: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> 主题: Re: Stunned by aptitude.
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 09:40 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> >          When I used aptitude, I noticed that aptitude does not have 
> > an error handling mechanism. When I `aptitude update`, if the network 
> > is broken (like dns problem, route problem), it can not connect to the 
> > server, so it reports error, and clean up local apt record. If I 
> > stupidly `aptitude autoclean` then, all my debs are gone.
> It is doing error handling:  If it can't reach that server, there's no point
> in considering it a valid source.  If you have no valid sources, there's no
> current packages.  It's working as designed.
Not really. See #201842 and #479620. Unfortunately Daniel Burrows still 
didn't comment on them. Maybe he will show up here?

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: