Debian

[sktsee]

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 20:44 +0100, Liam Proven wrote: 
> 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!

I wouldn't assume that. :) 

-- 
sktsee