| 2010-06-10 16:58:58 |
cariboo |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2010-06-10 16:58:58 |
cariboo |
attachment added |
|
Dependencies.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/50081925/Dependencies.txt |
|
| 2010-06-10 17:19:22 |
qamelian |
removed subscriber qamelian |
|
|
|
| 2010-06-10 18:23:45 |
Martin Erik Werner |
description |
Binary package hint: aptitude
It has come to our attention that the developers want remove aptitude from the base installation again. Most of us that run a testing version use aptitude safe-upgrade, in order to not break the installation when upgrading new packages, especially when we've been notified of new packages that could cause severe breakage. I find aptitude with it's options is a very useful tool during testing, removing it will make the job a lot harder.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: aptitude 0.4.11.11-1ubuntu10
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-2.3-generic 2.6.35-rc2
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-2-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: amd64
Date: Thu Jun 10 09:52:34 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release amd64 (20100429)
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=en_CA.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: aptitude |
Binary package hint: aptitude
It has come to our attention that the developers want remove aptitude from the base installation again. Most of us that run a testing version use aptitude safe-upgrade, in order to not break the installation when upgrading new packages, especially when we've been notified of new packages that could cause severe breakage. I find aptitude with it's options is a very useful tool during testing, removing it will make the job a lot harder.
NOTES ON THE DECISION
(This is based on a conversation with Colin Watson on IRC and the references given)
The initial rationale is basically size; approximately 2MB (which in the scope of things are very precious on the liveCD) will be gained by removing tasksel and aptitude.
The initial reason why aptitude was included in ubuntu was that the desktop installer (ubiquity) depended on it, but now the desktop installer has been rewritten to not require it unless in particular cases, and hence it goes.
The alternate install CD will still install aptitude and tasksel, since the debian-installer which is used in installation requires it.
Likewise the server install of ubuntu will still include it (presumably also since it uses debian-installer)
This was part of the "Maverick Spring Cleaning" which was discussed during UDS-M and is specified here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubu...pring-cleaning
As "Install tasksel and aptitude dynamically"
More info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsT...SpringCleaning
"We could substantially reduce the size of the minimal seed by installing tasksel and aptitude dynamically, so that we don't end up with them on live-installed systems. We will still need to keep tasksel in the server seed."
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: aptitude 0.4.11.11-1ubuntu10
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-2.3-generic 2.6.35-rc2
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-2-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: amd64
Date: Thu Jun 10 09:52:34 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release amd64 (20100429)
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=en_CA.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: aptitude
|
|
| 2010-06-11 11:17:31 |
Philip Muškovac |
affects |
aptitude (Ubuntu) |
ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu) |
|
| 2010-06-11 11:17:31 |
Philip Muškovac |
ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu): status |
New |
Confirmed |
|
| 2010-06-19 08:47:42 |
m4v |
description |
Binary package hint: aptitude
It has come to our attention that the developers want remove aptitude from the base installation again. Most of us that run a testing version use aptitude safe-upgrade, in order to not break the installation when upgrading new packages, especially when we've been notified of new packages that could cause severe breakage. I find aptitude with it's options is a very useful tool during testing, removing it will make the job a lot harder.
NOTES ON THE DECISION
(This is based on a conversation with Colin Watson on IRC and the references given)
The initial rationale is basically size; approximately 2MB (which in the scope of things are very precious on the liveCD) will be gained by removing tasksel and aptitude.
The initial reason why aptitude was included in ubuntu was that the desktop installer (ubiquity) depended on it, but now the desktop installer has been rewritten to not require it unless in particular cases, and hence it goes.
The alternate install CD will still install aptitude and tasksel, since the debian-installer which is used in installation requires it.
Likewise the server install of ubuntu will still include it (presumably also since it uses debian-installer)
This was part of the "Maverick Spring Cleaning" which was discussed during UDS-M and is specified here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubu...pring-cleaning
As "Install tasksel and aptitude dynamically"
More info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsT...SpringCleaning
"We could substantially reduce the size of the minimal seed by installing tasksel and aptitude dynamically, so that we don't end up with them on live-installed systems. We will still need to keep tasksel in the server seed."
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: aptitude 0.4.11.11-1ubuntu10
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-2.3-generic 2.6.35-rc2
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-2-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: amd64
Date: Thu Jun 10 09:52:34 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release amd64 (20100429)
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=en_CA.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: aptitude
|
Binary package hint: aptitude
It has come to our attention that the developers want remove aptitude from the base installation again. Most of us that run a testing version use aptitude safe-upgrade, in order to not break the installation when upgrading new packages, especially when we've been notified of new packages that could cause severe breakage. I find aptitude with it's options is a very useful tool during testing, removing it will make the job a lot harder.
NOTES ON THE DECISION
(This is based on a conversation with Colin Watson on IRC and the references given)
The initial rationale is basically size; approximately 2MB (which in the scope of things are very precious on the liveCD) will be gained by removing tasksel and aptitude.
The initial reason why aptitude was included in ubuntu was that the desktop installer (ubiquity) depended on it, but now the desktop installer has been rewritten to not require it unless in particular cases, and hence it goes.
The alternate install CD will still install aptitude and tasksel, since the debian-installer which is used in installation requires it.
Likewise the server install of ubuntu will still include it (presumably also since it uses debian-installer)
This was part of the "Maverick Spring Cleaning" which was discussed during UDS-M and is specified here: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-m-spring-cleaning
As "Install tasksel and aptitude dynamically"
More info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/MaverickSpringCleaning
"We could substantially reduce the size of the minimal seed by installing tasksel and aptitude dynamically, so that we don't end up with them on live-installed systems. We will still need to keep tasksel in the server seed."
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: aptitude 0.4.11.11-1ubuntu10
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.35-2.3-generic 2.6.35-rc2
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-2-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
Architecture: amd64
Date: Thu Jun 10 09:52:34 2010
EcryptfsInUse: Yes
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release amd64 (20100429)
ProcEnviron:
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=en_CA.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: aptitude
|
|
| 2015-01-14 18:12:53 |
Mathew Hodson |
summary |
Removal of aptitude from base installation |
Include aptitude in base installation |
|
