Michael R. Head
burner at suppressingfire.org
Wed Sep 19 23:36:52 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:39 -0500, sktsee wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 19:30 +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
> > On 17/09/2007, Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby
> > > Nope. apt cant be used without dpkg.
> > Yes, it can.
> $ mv /usr/bin/dpkg /usr/bin/dpkg.bak
> $ sudo apt-get remove libdvdplay0
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Need to
> 0B of archives.
> After unpacking 119kB disk space will be freed. Do you want to continue
> [Y/n]? y
> Could not exec dpkg!
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (100)
> I don't think so.
That's a specious argument. apt, as packaged on debian, required dpkg.
apt, however, is a program that can be implemented by using another low
level package manager, such as RPM. Just see the apt-rpm project.
Michael R. Head <burner at suppressingfire.org>
More information about the ubuntu-users