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

consistent usage of aptitude (was Re: Etch errata)



Hi,

On Wednesday 30 May 2007 16:39, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >> > > I thought aptitude was the recommended frontend.
> >> > In the case of security updates, it does not matter, because there are
> >> > no complex dependencies to be resolved, you only upgrade existing
> >> > packages and there should be no difference which program is used.
> >> My point was that we should have consistent recommendations.
> > Well, seemingly inconsistent, it's all the same APT library.
>  You know this, and propably most reading this list, but Andrei got a
> point there, it propably will confuse some users.
>
>  On the other hand - before changing it in those pages it would be
> required to convince the security team to adapt their templates for the
> DSAs they send out.  Otherwise we will confuse those users even more,
> having different recommendations wrt/ security in the different parts.

The first step in convincing someone is to tell about the issue, so I cc:ed 
the security team :)

Maybe it doesn't even need convincing, as everybody agrees that we should be 
consistent in our documentation, that aptitude is the recommended 
command-line package-manager and that therefore also the DSA templates should 
be changed to reflect that. Security team, do you agree?


regards,
	Holger

Attachment: pgprHfG0dtwNL.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: