[linux-elitists] Packaging, deps, and office suites
Karsten M. Self
Mon Oct 29 14:38:09 PDT 2007
on Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 04:28:16PM -0500, Ruben Safir (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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 (email@example.com) 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."
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten
Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
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