> That's one of the problems with making your package management system > file based, instead of package based.
The problem with making the package management system package based, of course is that everybod calls their packages different names, although they contain the same software. You can't win either way. Actually, the file-based approach is more reliable in case of libraries, which contain a version number in the file name, and package dependencies can be set up as >=version. apt does not solve this problem either, Debian just has a rigorous(true?) system of package naming. Any independent (as opposed to "based on") apt-distros (are there any?) presumably simply copies the naming scheme, thus sidestepping the problem, not solving it. The naming scheme is the real advantage of apt over rpm, not its technology (which is IMHO worse). The same could be achieved with rpm, and there's no guarantee it'll always work with apt. It'll always work with Debian, yeah fancy that, it'll also *ALWAYS* work with Red Hat, and SuSE, and etc ... Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann, list0570 at paradise dot net dot nz http://volker.orcon.net.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
