> Thomas Adam wrote: > > --- Filip Moritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now, is there any means to apt-get install A, ignoring it's alleged > > dependencies to B and C, not affecting it's remaining deps? > > Doing so is a really stupid idea, since the dependencies are > there to ensure that the intended package you install will > work.
Assuming those dependencies are well-tailored, you're right. But now A's core functionality doesn't need B and C, only some additional features, I don't care about, do. You might answer, the right thing to do is to file a wishlist bug-report to split A, thats propably what I'll do anyways. But until this effects official sarge packages, which I'm going to use by policy, I need some workaround. Telling the apt/dpkg system to ignore exactly A's desire for B and C would be perfect. So again - is there any possibility do do so? I'd appreciate any hint to this, as I'm searching for quite a while now. > If it is the case that you have versions of packages B > and C that are already installed, you could use 'equivs', but > I don't think it will help you here. I could even do so, without having B or C installed locally, but this would effect in preventing B and C from being installed, in any other case too. Obviously I would want to have, say C, installed as soon as any future installation of F really needs it. I may be even too keen in having the "least possible" fingerprint of installed packages. However, I regard every single piece of software as being a security risk to consider. And one runs out of one's own condidering capacity quite fast, when just let any package deliberately let satisfy any dependency desire. g., fil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
