Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +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.
> That's by far the most round logic I've heard tonight.
What on earth are you talking about? There's no circular logic there.
> If it can't
> reach the repository to know about the packages, how in the world do you
> expect aptitude to know about the packages?
He doesn't expect aptitude to know about the package.
He just expects aptitude to not assume that it knows that there are no packages
when it already knows that communication failed--and therefore, it should know
that is doesn't know yet whether there are any packages or no.
>> This gives it no right to erease all information stored locally.
> It does when you update your package list to contain no packages, then ...
But aptitude shouldn't being updating the package list to list no packages
when it didn't successfully communicate. It doesn't know that there are