On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:12:08AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> And *I'm* being precise when I said "foo 1.0" is removed and not
> replaced.
This is what Cameron said:
> > User runs "dpkg -i foo-modules_2.0_arch.deb"
> >
> > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0
> > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> > installation of foo-modules_2.0
Scott says that the first of these steps does not happen - no equivalent
of 'dpkg --remove foo-modules' is done. That is all that this subthread
was about. Do you genuinely disagree with his assessment of what dpkg
does? If not, then I don't understand who you are disagreeing with.
Vince
--
Vincent Ho
loki /at/ internode.on.net
Every complex problem is a simple hierarchy of simple problems.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
