New blog post: APT Patterns

If you have ever used aptitude a bit more extensively on the command-line, you’ll probably have come across its patterns. This week I spent some time implementing (some) patterns for apt, so you do not need aptitude for that, and I want to let you in on the details of this merge request !74.

· · Web · 2 · 3 · 2

@juliank As I said on IRC, IMO ?name should have the behaviour that ?exact-name is described as having, and the current name behaviour should be renamed to something that indicates more explicitly that it's a regex (?name-regex, ?name-pattern, something like that).

As ?name is named that way for legacy support, I wonder if introducing something like ?name-regex an an alias for ?name would still be good, so that people who want to be _explicit_ that it's a regex have that option?

@juliank Effectively ?name is deprecated in favour of the explicit options (?exact-name and ?name-regex). What do you think?

@Odd_Bloke I think that probably makes sense. But probably should do that in aptitude too.

@juliank Cool to see some of aptitude's features making their way into apt. Any chance of the "why" command bring implemented? That's pretty much the only thing I still use aptitude for.

@jamessan can you reverse engineer it? I always feel like 'why' is super hard to implement.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit