[linux-elitists] Packaging, deps, and office suites

Karsten M. Self karsten@linuxmafia.com
Mon Oct 29 14:38:09 PDT 2007

on Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:28:16PM -0500, Ruben Safir (ruben@mrbrklyn.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 12:40:29PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > on Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:38:52PM +1100, Jeff Waugh (jdub@perkypants.org) wrote:
> > > <quote who="James Sparenberg">

> > > If you avoid aptitude or apt-get autoremove, the implicit dependency
> > > tracking is never invoked. That said, it's an extremely handy feature, and
> > > very easy to adapt to if you are in that situation.
> > 
> > Um, bad advice.
> > 
> > Aptitude _is_ the recommended package installer for Debian these
> > days, and its deps resolution generally is to be preferred to
> > straight apt-get.  In particular, mixing use of apt-get and aptitude
> > tends to confuse things (some packages are marked as explicitly
> > installed, some as only resolving deps).  And in most cases,
> > pacakges installed automatically to resolve a dep should be removed
> > when their dependant package is removed.  
> unless they shouldn't.  The whole package management concept is flawed.

Ah:  "It doesn't work."

Rant much?

Please see:


If you can describe one or more specific instances of undesired behavior
regarding package management behavior, please do.  Better yet, report
them as bugs.  Effectively.

The whole concept really *isn't* flawed, though specific elements of the
implementation may be.


Karsten M. Self <karsten@linuxmafia.com>        http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten
    Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20071029/68e2f770/attachment.pgp 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list