Re: disable orange progress running apt
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 07 August 2017 08:39:46 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > Also while I'm here: the garish colors of apt(8) are not the #1 reason
> > I switched back to apt-get(8), but they are #2. Whoever chose the
> > colors clearly doesn't use a terminal with a white background, because
> > yellow on white is simply unreadable.
>
> That seems odd, and would tend to make me think of using the educational
> club.
I don't understand; what part seems odd? My use of terminals with
white backgrounds? That's fair. Most Linux kids these days seem to
prefer black backgrounds.
Or do you dispute the fact that apt uses yellow foreground text when
you do "apt update"?
In TERM=rxvt-unicode, apt uses the escape sequence ESC[33m to produce
yellow text. I just captured it using "script" and verified this.
This is slightly different from the ESC[38;5;3m that "tput setaf 3"
uses, but they both give me yellow fg text when tested interactively.
> The only machine I have that uses apt as default, is a raspi running
> jessie, and its happy as a clam, either on its full 16 bit color
> framebuffer screen, or on a logged in terminal-4.8 here.
The Linux virtual console has a black background by default.
Rxvt has white. Xterm also used to have a white background, but Debian
seems to have changed that at some point. (xterm(1) still speaks of
"the X defaults (black text on a white background)" but only in a general
sense.)
> LS_COLORS=rs=0:di=01;34:[...]
Are you suggesting that apt(8) uses LS_COLORS? That would surprise me.
It's most defintely not in the man page. Then again, the word "color"
is nowhere in that man page.
It would also surprise me, because LS_COLORS tells ls(1) how to use
colors based on file types and extensions, which are not something that
apt(8) deals with. apt deals with package names, package descriptions,
retrievals and retrieval failures, etc.
Reply to: