> > > Explain why I should not expect apt to know about all packages > installed on the computer.
I don't know if I can, with any degree of sanity. If there were only one package manager, this wouldn't be a problem. Different package managers exist for a reason - no comment on whether this is a GOOD reason or not. You see, in my silly way I assumed that > whenever a package was installed, regardless of what package manager > installed it, it would then be listed in a central database file of > installed apps. This is a fictional item. Thus, all package managers would know about it. Package managers maintain their own lists of things they've installed. it wouldn't really be reasonable to expect one package manager to stay up to date on all the latest from all the other managers. And then there's the problem of applications installed without the use of a package manager. Package managers are different for the same reason that different distributions of Linux are different. The > whole operating system would know about it. Menu editors would know > about it. The "operating system" doesn't know or care about any packages that are installed. It's not like there is a central "registry" where all the info about everything is stored. This is why package managers were invented to begin with. Even (gasp!) the user of the computer would be able to find > out about it. I agree, the user is a very hard problem to solve. There would be no confusion and fragmentation of function. > Welcome to real life. > I don't doubt the truth of what you say. I just think that a package > manager that is not aware of all packages installed on the system is a > fail. > Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe you expect too much. -wes _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
