Re: ??: Stunned by aptitude.
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:03 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
>>>> I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting
>> at. If
>>>> aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong.
>>> I understood it, but given that this is how apt has always worked
>> and is
>>> documented to work, why change it now?
>> Because it's error-prone. Because it's a poor-quality design.
> Might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself: The same could
> be said for your HTML-spewing MUA.
Please, it is pointless to make an ad hominem argument. He does have a
valid point if you look at if from software users' point of view.