Re: any ETA for a working "rpm"??

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6 Apr 2003, seth vidal wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 14:12, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 April 2003 01:19, Klaasjan Brand uttered:
> > > So? All apt does is fork an "rpm -Uvh" process for the app it wants to
> > > install. And yes, it's happened to me in both cases.
> > 
> > Blink, you sure about that?  Last time I looked at apt, it did not pass things 
> > off to the /usr/bin/rpm binary, and instead tried to use the rpm libs itself.  
> > Have they fixed this yet?
> > 
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken apt has always passed things to the rpm binary.

That's right, apt-rpm has always done
a) dependency resolving using rpm API
b) install/upgrade/erasure by calling /bin/rpm 

Why? Don't ask me.. I don't like the situation either :-/

	- Panu -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+kSwkla5U8jydsKoRAqOuAJ4/jUAXpgP9+ApPGzUAKeo5TtyuiACdH90/
Es3cKDgJ7EQxTENfP7MgP24=
=xUmi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Centos Users]     [Kernel Development]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat Phoebe Beta]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Fedora Discussion]     [Gimp]     [Stuff]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux