sktsee at tulsaconnect.com
Fri Sep 21 18:50:37 UTC 2007
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:04:01 +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
> On 19/09/2007, sktsee <sktsee at tulsaconnect.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 19:30 +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
>> > On 17/09/2007, Mihamina (R12y) Rakotomandimby
>> > <mihamina.rakotomandimby at etu.univ-orleans.fr> wrote:
>> > > Liam Proven wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >> rpm - dpkg
>> > > >> apt - yum(fedora)/urpmi(mandriva)/yast(suse)
>> > > > I disagree. There is no benefit at all in distinguishing between the
>> > > > end-user tools used to manipulate packages, because there are dozens.
>> > > > Both apt and dpkg are package tools, as are aptitude, synaptic,
>> > > > kpackage and many others.
>> > >
>> > > Nope. apt cant be used without dpkg.
>> > Yes, it can.
>> I don't think so.
> You are trying to second-guess me and you're guessing wrong.
> Apt also runs over RPM and can be installed on a SuSE machine, for
> instance. There, there is no dpkg command and no .DEB handling
> subsystem whatsoever.
> Ergo, apt does not require dpkg.
Your assertion is factually incorrect. It is apt-rpm and apt4rpm
(deprecated) that do not rely on dpkg. While apt-rpm is a port of apt and
changes to apt are incorporated to apt-rpm where there is overlap, it is,
nevertheless, a separately maintained codebase. It is apt-rpm and apt4rpm
that are installed on rpm-based distros, not apt. And given that apt-rpm
has some features that are not present in apt like LUA scripting and rpm
specific functions, it becomes necessary to distinguish between apt and
apt-rpm in order to avoid confusion.
If you currently want use apt to manage deb packages, it is an absolute
requirement that dpkg be present on the system. Of course, given the
Debian-centric context of this thread (titled "Debian") it really should
be sufficiently apparent to everyone that when someone writes "apt can't be
used without dpkg", the author is referring to apt as it implemented on
More information about the ubuntu-users