On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 10:39:02AM +0300, Matti Airas wrote: > <package> tells whether a specific package is installed. rpm -qi
dpkg -l, dpkg -s > <package> gives info about the package, -ql lists the files and so on. dpkg -L > dpkg -l <package>, however, gives a nasty, bastardized formatted > output, which always seems to truncate version numbers in the middle. COLUMNS=190 dpkg -l > Furthermore I've never been able to find a way to see the description > of an installed package on the command line. Though it's just me, I'm > sure. :-) dpkg -s you really should rtfm... > Apt-get, while developed for Debian, is already used on several > RPM-based distributions (Conectiva, Mandrake) as well, so it is not > really a packaging format issue. ... although I miss it every single > second when maintaining any Red Hat server at work... apt-get doesn't work as well on rpm systems though. > The point I'm trying to make is, that while dpkg is in itself a viable > and good package format (which I personally DO prefer over rpm), some > conformance is good. As it is now, Debian is in danger of getting > isolated, especially in commercial environments. since when did we give a damn about commercial environments? there is no need for us to follow herd (not hurd) mentality here. > I think that might be an unrealistic goal. I think it's better to > embrace and extend, i.e. to provide a toolset to transparently install > rpm packages with 'alien' and 'dpkg' on a dpkg based distribution. that is a reasonable thing to do, but we should not go further then that. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgpGLTjqoNJS6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
