On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 05:00:17PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Marc Singer wrote: > > > Apparently, both programs write the file. If both accept an empty > > file, what is the harm in both of them creating it when it doesn't > > exist? > > apt does not write the file. It only reads it.
Then it seems ever more peculiar that apt should abort when the file is missing. Why should it care about the status file when it is invoked to download packages? apt-get -d ... What I'm saying is that there are some assumptions coded into apt and dpkg that make them difficult to use in ways that are useful, but not as originally intended. What is the harm in making them more flexible?
