Debian

[Michael R. Head]

On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 08:43 -0500, sktsee wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 19:36 -0400, Michael R. Head wrote:
> > 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
> statement upthread:
> 
>    >>  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.

Absolutely. There are of course differences between rpm and dpkg, and
there are differences between the package file formats used by these
tools. Ultimately, however, the difference doesn't mean much to users,
since they/we only ever really use the higher level tools.

My point was just that it's been repeated in this thread a few times
that "apt can't be used without dpkg" and that's just not true.

> -- 
> sktsee
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Michael R. Head <burner at suppressingfire.org>
suppressingfire.org