Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 22:43 +0200, schreef George Danchev:
>> On Monday 10 January 2005 22:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> > Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 15:12 -0500, schreef William Ballard:
>> > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> > > > dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
>> > >
>> > > But you don't expect to do that for other packages.
>> >
>> > You can also just run 'apt-get -f install' once the dependency breakage
>> > occurs. That's what it's for.
>>
>> This should be the last one should try, e.g. break the things with dpkg -i
>> and
>> then try to fix them with apt-get install -f, what if you have just broke
>> apt ... yes I know one can handle that, but why spending extra time in a-la
>> rpm hell [tm] situations, which could be avoided easily... The right way
>> [tm]
>> is to place the resulting deb in a local apt repo and install & whatever
>> from
>> there exploring the advantages of apt.
>
> That's a possibility, but it's hardly 'the right way', IMO. Setting up a
> local package repository is a bit overkill IMHO.
>
> If installing a package with dpkg -i breaks apt, that means there's
> something fishy going on, and would warrant a bug report IMO, with its
> severity being at least 'important'. Apart from that...
Unless you dpkg -i apt or one of its depends. But they are so few that
you should know what you get yourself into if you mess with any of
them.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
