sktsee at tulsaconnect.com
Thu Sep 20 13:43:07 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 19:36 -0400, Michael R. Head wrote:
> 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.
> > >
> > Hmmm...
> > $ 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:
> > libdvdplay0
> > 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.
Heh. So what you are saying is that dpkg is equivalent to rpm because
they are the low level tools responsible for package management that
other high level tools like apt, aptitude, yast, yum, etc. are dependent
upon in order to function. That would seem to support Mihamina's earlier
>> Please, dont make people more confused: the equivalences are:
>> rpm - dpkg
>> apt - yum(fedora)/urpmi(mandriva)/yast(suse)
yes? So maybe it is important to distinguish between the low level and
high level tools used in package management. For one thing, it would
avoid confusion when talking about the capabilities and limitations of
the tools in question.
More information about the ubuntu-users