the name "urpmi" does sound stupid, like somebody belching. why do linux programmers give their software such silly names? guess they dont have sales or packaging departments
Quoting Jay DeKing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:53 pm, Bryan Whitehead honored me with this > communique: > > Steve Fox wrote: > > > On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 12:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: > > >>In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap > > >>ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like > > >>dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. > > >>Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for > > >>your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) > > > > > > Wow, what a well thought-out response! You're a freaking genius! > > > > > > I NEED dependency checking. What I am asking for is the tool to only > > > worry about dependencies which are affected by the action being > > > requested. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. The message I replied to originally implied you > > didn't like the dependacy checking / resolving features of urpmi. > > > > > There is no reason for urpmi to care about unrelated dependencies which > > > I made a conscious decision to break knowing very well the potential > > > results. > > > > Your right on this. I second the motion to keep urpmi from being some > > wannabe apt. > > I understood from the start what he was getting at, it seemed like he made it > > pretty clear. And I'm glad you understand now, because if you're a sysadmin, > > you know the ugly implications of fingers (human or software) getting in > where they don't belong. There is a definite difference between "breaking" > and "refining" an app. > > Jay > > -- > Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such fools to begin > with, that it's compounding a felony. > -- Robert Benchley > > > >
