OT: useless pedantic argumentative noise: aptitude changelog gives "You must put some 'source' URIs in your sources.list"
On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:00:17 +0000 (UTC), Camaleón wrote in message
<[🔎] jplie1$a15$11@dough.gmane.org>:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 20:59:43 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:41:06 +0000 (UTC), Camaleón wrote in message
> > <[🔎] jpj7fi$kr$26@dough.gmane.org>:
>
> >> > ..that probably depends on the usefulness of your definition of
> >> > "$subject". ;o)
> >>
> >> There's no much room for guessing:
> >
> > ..no? ;o)
>
> Sure not. What's what you understand?
..er, why you carry onlike this? ;o)
Withdrawn, yer'onnor! ;oD
> >> $subject is the "subject" of this
> >> thread which -regardless its usefulness- states:
> >>
> >> ***
> >> Re: aptitude changelog gives "You must put some 'source' URIs in
> >> your sources.list"
> >> ***
> >
> > ..ok, _that's_ your definition. ;o)
>
> "My definition"? No, it's what it can be read in the subject.
.."$subject"!="subject", and if you argue otherwise,
you'll face a wee chicken-and-egg problem, one of us
came here before the other one of us. ;o)
> >> Bug or feature?
> >>
> >> Does "aptitude changelog" need the corresponding "deb-src" entry in
> >> order to avoid the error message ("E: You must put some 'source'
> >> URIs in your sources.list")?
> >
> > ..IMO both, 1.) a feature, because it does this thing differently
> > than apt-get, which offers a viable workaround when a bug hits it,
> > and 2.) a but, because aptitude's error message suggestion does not
> > work her, because of a "second bug". We've covered this, no need
> > to get too dizzy looping this bird over and over again.
>
> So you neither know. Okay, then please don't say _there's_ a bug ;-)
..we just disagree. No big deal. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: