[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body, link at end of body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad ns for domain in title, potentially bad keyword in body, +2 more (203): Revifol - whopills.com/revifol/ by naomabeed on askubuntu.com
a while back people were heralding the death of traditional package managers
probably people thought not only do devs like self contained package formats like snap, but users will also like them because they are fed up of getting stuck in dependency hell
but that has literally never happened to me
but yes, it might be useful for some package you can't otherwise get. But for the whole system O_O
@Zanna APT relies on repositories and locally available packages to solve dependency issues. APT won't be useful if some repository is missing or there's some conflict.
VTLO this question and vote to undelete its self-answer which was deleted by the OP. This will prevent a useful question from being closed by low reputation users who don't have permission to read the answer.
no longer needed, it's either an incorrect statement of our policy regarding answers or it's expressing a concern that the technique might not be intended to apply to Ubuntu (which I've addressed in an edit)
@EliahKagan I need one more undelete vote to undelete this answer which was deleted by the author. I also posted an explanatory comment below that answer's question.
@karel Undeleted. The OP seems to have thought it would be more appropriate as a comment (but it was an answer, even before the improvement).
@Zanna The question seems to really be asking about how do tell if something is a snap from any snap store (not necessarily snapcraft.io) vs. a deb package from any APT repository (not necessarily an repository that is official to Ubuntu or specific to Ubuntu).
Regarding the other issue of deb/apt, most approaches to answering it might work for files provided by installed deb packages that are not from any repository, but it would be fine if it didn't, because the expressed interest is finding out how the package was obtained.
The current wording is pretty bad because a snap store is a kind of repository. The original version did not have that problem (nor, as far as I can tell, did it have any problem). I've just read your meta post and the wording proposed there sounds fine and definitely preferable any other wording other than the original.
I don't agree that rep or how much time the OP has been on the site are important, but besides that, I totally agree with the OP here. The wording was fine, and then it was repeatedly broken and made objectively wrong. Your proposed wording does not have this problem so if people will accept it then that sounds good.
But I don't agree that talking about the "APT version" of some program or library implies anything inaccurate about APT. This usage of "version" is no different from:
> The digital download version of the album has two bonus tracks.
I didn't realise OP initially wrote "APT version" which can refer to any package from any repository available. "Ubuntu repository version" is misleading, IMO.
Part of what's at issue has to do with what APT actually is, how it works, how phrases like "APT version" and "APT package" are used in practice, including in documentation, the relationship between APT and dpkg, and so forth. I'm not committing to posting anything at all, but I'm hoping it will become clearer to me later how much information about this should be presented.
Also, if I wrote something now then I'd be concerned that what I said was inadvertently wrong or misleading and I'd end up checking back on it repeatedly, which would take up too much of my time right now.
This post is a success report, not a separate answer. The command is the same as in the much older post. I missed this and wrongly reviewed it as Looks OK. It's actually NAA. Sorry about that!
@Kulfy It seems to me that for actual unambiguous vandalism, it should still be rolled back. (But I wouldn't, for example, attempt to roll back an edit that tried to remove links from a spam post. People shouldn't make those edits, but I don't think it's worth rolling them back after the post is already deleted.)
not off-topic, it looks like a tooling question, not a question about how to write Fortran code, and no one has said anything to explain why it would be off-topic
Kind of a tough call, but considering that we have this question (which has worked out well and doesn't seem too broad or a matter of mere opinion), I think it's not POB.
^^ It's asking how Gedit is capable of doing syntax highlighting for languages whose development tools are not installed on the system. The proposed target is about how to manually override what language Gedit should regard a file to be written in, for the purpose of syntax highlighting.
It might be too broad, since it's also asking something else. Both come down to the same, or at least similar, confusions, but I can't decisively say that it should be considered sufficiently narrowly scoped. But if it is considered too broad, it can probably be edited, since the second question is clearly intended to be secondary. Either way, it's definitely not a duplicate of the proposed target.
I feel that instead of using the close votes and flooding the review queue, we can bypass it by utilizing the roomba, that's all. It reduces need for 4 other people to spend their time/votes I suppose.
@Kulfy The score of that question is zero, so it will be deleted.
If the question is more than 365 days old, and ...
has a score of 0 or less, or a score of 1 and a deleted owner
has no answers
is not locked
has view count <= the age of the question in days times 1.5
has 1 or 0 comments
isn't on a meta site
Given this context:
If the question is more than 30 days old, and ...
has -1 or lower score
has no answers
is not locked
... it will be automatically deleted.
I have downvoted some 30-odd questions that are quite old (more than 3 months or so), have no votes, no answers and not close...
@EliahKagan I do think this question, assuming it is not edited to remove significant parts, should be retitled (but not radically so) and possibly should have the very last sentence removed or heavily reworked.
Having posted an answer that reflects my understanding about how the question should be understood, I'm reluctant to do this myself (which might end up constituting an unjustified imposition of said understanding), and I'd also rather let it remain in its current state for a while than act rashly.
I'm inclined to think that question should have a title that reflects the fundamental confusion it's asking about, the idea that a language can be installed or not. Something like, "How can Gedit detect and highlight languages that aren't installed?" That is similar to the original title.