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

Bug#589108: marked as done (apt-cache: please search other fields)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Feb 2025 19:57:19 +0100
with message-id <20250225195511.GA4088395@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#589108: apt-cache: please search other fields
has caused the Debian Bug report #589108,
regarding apt-cache: please search other fields
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
589108: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589108
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.7.20.2+lenny2
Severity: wishlist

There are a couple of related bugs, although none of them mentions the
fields I’m interested in, Recommends: and Suggests:.

For me, a common use of apt-cache is to try to find related packages.

There’s no other way with apt-cache to search those fields (although
it’d be nice to search Depends: too, which is already possible).

So e.g. “apt-cache search freepats” to find all packages that mention
freepats in any way.

I’d not mind if an extra option were required, but since the full
package description is quite at liberty to mention other packages, I
don’t see anything to be gained in excluding these other fields from
what is searched as standard.

-- Package-specific info:

-- /etc/apt/preferences --

Package: *
Pin: release a=lenny-backports
Pin-Priority: 200

-- (/etc/apt/sources.list present, but not submitted) --


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0.5
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages apt depends on:
ii  debian-archive-keyring      2009.01.31   GnuPG archive keys of the Debian a
ii  libc6                       2.7-18lenny4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libgcc1                     1:4.3.2-1.1  GCC support library
ii  libstdc++6                  4.3.2-1.1    The GNU Standard C++ Library v3

apt recommends no packages.

Versions of packages apt suggests:
pn  apt-doc                     <none>       (no description available)
ii  bzip2                       1.0.5-1      high-quality block-sorting file co
ii  dpkg-dev                    1.14.29      Debian package development tools
ii  lzma                        4.43-14      Compression method of 7z format in
ii  python-apt                  0.7.7.1+nmu1 Python interface to libapt-pkg
ii  wajig                       2.0.38       simplified Debian package manageme

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:06:49AM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 0.7.20.2+lenny2
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> There are a couple of related bugs, although none of them mentions the
> fields I’m interested in, Recommends: and Suggests:.
> 
> For me, a common use of apt-cache is to try to find related packages.
> 
> There’s no other way with apt-cache to search those fields (although
> it’d be nice to search Depends: too, which is already possible).
> 
> So e.g. “apt-cache search freepats” to find all packages that mention
> freepats in any way.
> 
> I’d not mind if an extra option were required, but since the full
> package description is quite at liberty to mention other packages, I
> don’t see anything to be gained in excluding these other fields from
> what is searched as standard.

You are going to have to use patterns to query other fields, that's
what they are there for; the search commands explicit goal is full
text search.

We are going to have the '?description()' pattern at some point,
sadly it's missing so far as it's quite complex to implement
efficiently.

But then you can look at

`?or(?recommends(freepats),?provides(freepats),?depends(freepats),...)`

A specific match over the entire record doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
-- 
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en

--- End Message ---
Reply to: