On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:29:27 -0500, William Ballard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:22:47PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > Sorry, but a package can't install a brain. > > It builds a new package, so you look at that one before you do > > anything. Where is the problem? > > Why even bother having the concept of dependencies in the first > place? Why not just look at what anything needs and make > sure it's always there first? > > I don't know what dpkg bothers to try to install things it > should be able to know beforehand won't succeed. > > The problem is it uninstalls the old version of the thing, > so now whatever functionality you had is gone.
Could you possibly explain clearly what is the difference between using dpkg -i to install a package build from some *-source and using it to install _any_ _other_ _package_? If you want the convenience of automatic dependencies installation use a frontend, you have been told how to. Otherwise dependencies are there for dpkg to know that it cannot configure a package, and for you to look at them. The way dpkg works is known since well in the last century and, be it a good way or not (eg. rpm does it your way), any administrator using dpkg without considering it deserves what they get. -- Michał Politowski Talking has been known to lead to communication if practised carelessly.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
