Re: .deb dependancy hell
From: Jonathan Dowland (jmtd_at_compsoc.dur.ac.uk)
Date: 01/28/04
- Previous message: Bojan Baros: "Re: Debian list = spam and virus repeater/multiplexer"
- In reply to: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Next in thread: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Reply: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:41:39 +0000 To: DebianUser List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:32:53PM -0500, Richard Hoskins wrote:
> Greg Folkert <greg@gregfolkert.net> writes:
>
> > RPM == DEB are of nearly equal capacity. It is the Packaging that
> > Debian Uses and the Proper dependency checking it does.
>
> Yes. Whatever.
Flippancy doesn't make people more inclined to help you in future...
> If package A needs package B, and package B needs package A, why in
> the world are they two separate packages?
>
> But thanks to you and everyone else who pointed me to the solution.
Perhaps they are maintained by seperate people, and seperate uploads /
version hikes etc. are convenient.
-- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Bojan Baros: "Re: Debian list = spam and virus repeater/multiplexer"
- In reply to: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Next in thread: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Reply: Richard Hoskins: "Re: .deb dependancy hell"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]