Re: Bug#25026: apt: Why do you list the packages you're _not_ doing anything to instead of the ones you are?
On 27 Mar 1999, Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm curious to know how this behaves in APT v3. (I can't install it because I
> depend on software that won't run on libc 6.1).
Fortunately v3 has not been linked to libc 6.1 and should not be for as
long as is possible.
> Is there indeed an option to have it display the list of packages that will be
> upgraded?
-u or the APT::Get::Show-Upgraded config directive
> It seems to me that the most sensible thing to do is to have a configurable
> maximum number of packages to list for any of the groups. If there are fewer
> than that maximum then just display the count of packages, otherwise provide
> the list.
The other lists are quite important, it is not acceptable to hide them
under any circumstances because they can indicate that something
unexpected might happen, upgrading has a much lower chance of breaking
something.
> I still claim describing what *isn't* happening rather than what *is*
> happening is pretty strange. There must be at least as many people who default
> to not upgrading packages as there are who default to upgrading everything
> without paying attention to what's being upgraded.
Well then those people will not be using the dist-upgrade and upgrade
commands :> Dselect is a special case, presumably you have already
examined your choices through the dselect UI in that instance.
Jason
Reply to: