Debian

[Liam Proven]

On 21/09/2007, sktsee <sktsee at tulsaconnect.com> wrote:
> 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmmm...
> > [...]
> >> I don't think so.
> >
> > You are trying to second-guess me and you're guessing wrong.
> >
> > http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/
> >
> > 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
> Debian-based systems.

In other words, your assumptions /were/, as I stated, different to mine.

But really, quit splitting hairs, this is not a productive discussion
for either of us or anyone else!

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com • MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk • Skype: liamproven • ICQ: 73187508