On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 10:46:47AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:48:39PM -0700, Marc Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 01:03:22PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > There are apparently three package selection databases. These should be > > > either unified or cross-validated: > > > > > > - dpkg > > > - apt > > > - aptitude > > > > > > Anyone else running into this? > > > > Karsten, don't bother. Every time someone brings up the fact that > > aptitude, everyone's darling perfect child, does its own damn thing and > > re-implements the status file... they get told to go away. > > > > What's even *better* is that command-line aptitude (insert random quote > > about how aptitude is a drop-in replacement for apt-get, which it isn't) > > and ncurses aptitude, *don't have the same behavior!* Ncurses aptitude > > *does* honor the status file. > > > > Sometimes. > > > > I'm sorry, but dpkg is the *fundamental* tool. If you don't honor its > > interfaces, you are *broken*. 'Nuff said. > > Desired state of packages should never have been in /var/lib/dpkg/status > in the first place. (And yes, I've had this discussion with the original > author, who agreed ...) > > -- > Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, shouln't aptitutde, synaptic, apt-get,dpkg somehow unifiy how things are done and what files they affect? -Kev
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
