On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 01:47:25PM -0400, Cindy-Sue Causey wrote: > On 8/13/18, Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > On Mon 13 Aug 2018 at 17:49:08 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 08:35:50AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >> > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 06:47:02 -0500 > >> > Richard Owlett <rowl...@cloud85.net> wrote:
SNIP... > >> As I said already, dpkg does install dependencies. Actually, I don't > >> know any (Debian) tool which wouldn't, by default. > > > > I don't think it does, y'know. That's why apt-get was created. > > > I always need someone else to say the right thing to trigger thoughts. > That's a good one there. Dpkg DOES complain about, i.e. dpkg DOES name > the right dependencies that are missing. It just doesn't go that extra > mile to help bring them on home. Maybe you'd find this command relevant when installing packages manually: apt-get --print-uris --yes install $PACKAGE_NAME | grep ^\' | cut -d\' -f2 creates a list of needed downloads to install $PACKAGE_NAME. I don't know who gets the credit for that one but it seems pretty nifty. > To date, I've been lucky when going that route on occasionally regular > occasion. The list of dependencies has been short... as has the list > of secondary (?) dependencies that the immediately relevant > dependencies... depend on to do THEIR own part of the whole. Each one > needed has to be singularly tracked down and then installed. > > Very manual process. If you're into really "seeing" how things > interact, that's one route that'll help catch a quick peek... > including learning how to track down more packages *that won't kill > your system* if those dependencies aren't immediately available > through one's favored package repository. I invariably end up > distracted by something shiny incidentally discovered when I > absolutely have to go that route.. > > Cindy :) -- Jason
