guillemj

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by guillemj 5y ago

   Hmm this seems to conflate various things. As anyone who has had to make code interact with GnuPG will attest, I very much agree its interfaces are not ideal to put it mildly. I'm pretty excited, though, about things like Statless Open
2. 2.▲
   by guillemj 9y ago

   Either here or I guess a mail to the debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org mailing list would do, whatever is most convenient. :)
3. 3.▲
   by guillemj 9y ago

   There is already «apt-cache depends <package>» or even «apt-cache depends --recurse <package>». Perhaps those are missing something?
4. 4.▲
   by guillemj 9y ago

   I assume you mean maintainer scripts here. If so we are already going in that direction: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/DeclarativePackaging For interactivity that should in principle be a solved pro
5. 5.▲
   by guillemj 9y ago

   I agree this is currently a problem, the solutions are currently either too heavy weight, or too limited ( https://wiki.debian.org/DebianRepository/Setup ). What I've been wanting to do is to add a better alternati
6. 6.▲
   by guillemj 9y ago

   This has been part of the dpkg roadmap for some time now ( https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/RoadMap ). And something I'm slowly but progressively moving towards. But TBH it has been low priority. Knowing of p
7. 7.▲
   by guillemj 9y ago

   Please check https://wiki.debian.org/BusterPriorityRequalification , https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/EssentialOnDiet and https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/Importan