答复: Stunned by aptitude.
in [Debian]
|
From: Magicloud on 2 Jul 2008 02:10 I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know. This gives it no right to erease all information stored locally. It is like, if my mobile was broken today, my wife could not contact with me, so she should think that I DIE? And call the cops, and throw out all my staff? It is not right, Mr. -----ÓʼþÔ¼þ----- ·¢¼þÈË: Paul Johnson [mailto:baloo(a)ursine.ca] ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2008Äê7ÔÂ2ÈÕ 12:46 ÊÕ¼þÈË: debian-user(a)lists.debian.org Ö÷Ìâ: Re: Stunned by aptitude. On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 09:40 +0800, Magicloud wrote: > Hello, > > When I used aptitude, I noticed that aptitude does not have > an error handling mechanism. When I `aptitude update`, if the network > is broken (like dns problem, route problem), it can not connect to the > server, so it reports error, and clean up local apt record. If I > stupidly `aptitude autoclean` then, all my debs are gone. It is doing error handling: If it can't reach that server, there's no point in considering it a valid source. If you have no valid sources, there's no current packages. It's working as designed. -- Paul Johnson baloo(a)ursine.ca -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Paul Johnson on 2 Jul 2008 02:10 On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote: > I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does > not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know. That's by far the most round logic I've heard tonight. If it can't reach the repository to know about the packages, how in the world do you expect aptitude to know about the packages? > This gives it no right to erease all information stored locally. It does when you update your package list to contain no packages, then tell it to autoclean. This is purely a pilot error. > It is like, if my mobile was broken today, my wife could not contact with > me, so she should think that I DIE? And call the cops, and throw out all my > staff? This is more like if you broke your phone, then deliberately told your friend call your wife pretending to be the coroner to let her know you died. -- Paul Johnson baloo(a)ursine.ca
From: CaT on 2 Jul 2008 02:40 On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:06:56AM +0000, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote: > > I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does > > not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know. > > That's by far the most round logic I've heard tonight. If it can't > reach the repository to know about the packages, how in the world do you > expect aptitude to know about the packages? If it knew about packages for that repository in the past but failed to contact the repository now it should not assume that it's ok to wipe out the package list. I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting at. If aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong. -- "Police noticed some rustling sounds from Linn's bottom area and on closer inspection a roll of cash was found protruding from Linn's anus, the full amount of cash taken in the robbery." - http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/robber-hides-loot-up-his-booty/2008/05/09/1210131248617.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Paul Johnson on 2 Jul 2008 02:50 On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote: > I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting at. If > aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong. I understood it, but given that this is how apt has always worked and is documented to work, why change it now? Apparently, there's a flag you can set the flag mentioned upthread if it's a bother for you. -- Paul Johnson baloo(a)ursine.ca
From: CaT on 2 Jul 2008 03:00 On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:41:09AM +0000, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote: > > > I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting at. If > > aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong. > > I understood it, but given that this is how apt has always worked and is > documented to work, why change it now? Apparently, there's a flag you apt is not aptitude. I've not seen this in apt and I just tested it by firewalling a mirror off and running apt-get update. The lists files are still there. I ran apt-get clean and they are still there. I ran apt-get autoclean too, just to be sure. Files remained. If aptitude behaves differently then it is broken. > can set the flag mentioned upthread if it's a bother for you. I believe said flag controls wether or not apt automatically removes the lists files for repositories that are not actually in your sources.list file anymore. -- "Police noticed some rustling sounds from Linn's bottom area and on closer inspection a roll of cash was found protruding from Linn's anus, the full amount of cash taken in the robbery." - http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/robber-hides-loot-up-his-booty/2008/05/09/1210131248617.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Installing the Wacom Bamboo tablet Next: 答复: 答复: Stunned by aptitude. |