> Yes. I have the same question. Using apt, I can update redhat system
> packages easily. However, when I install non-redhat packages, apt is not
> useful at all.
>
> Bo
Yep, found that out yesterday too when I got apt installed and running. It's
lightyears away from being a perfect solution as w
On 24 Aug 2002, Peter Kiem wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 23:37, Martín Marqués wrote:
>
> > The problem here is that RedHat's dependencies sux. But rpms are OK.
> >
> > Example, I tried to freshen all the updates of a RedHat 7.2 instalation, and
> > it just doesn't work due to dependencies.
Yes. I have the same question. Using apt, I can update redhat system
packages easily. However, when I install non-redhat packages, apt is not
useful at all.
Bo
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 11:02:36PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 10:29:37AM +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
> >
> >
rpmfind is good if you know the subprogram needed to satisfy the depenancy
of an RPM, but you have to manually find and download it.
Mandrake-Linux has this whole problem figured out right. If you install
something new from the CDs, it will determine what other RPMs need to be
installed to satis
On Dom 25 Ago 2002 00:38, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> I think what is really needed is an extension to RPM to allow subordinate
> packages to be included in an RPM to satisfy dependencies if they aren't
> already on the system.
I´m not sure, but isn´t rpmfind what you are looking for?
--
Porqué
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 01:50:42PM -0700, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 07:38:50AM -0500, jim tate wrote:
> > To make the desktop easier for new users , you must do something
> > about RPM and it's dependencies problems when trying to install new
> > packages.
>
> Red Hat alrea
On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 10:29:37AM +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
[...]
> I admit with RedHat standard CD-ROM updated RPMS, up2date is the way to go.
> It's slick.
>
> HOWEVER
>
> You try typing:
>
> up2date
>
> You'll get zilch.
>
> What the boys are talking about and I have to agree with is
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 03:32:43PM -0400, Anthony Abby wrote:
: > Windows 2000 was indeed marketed to home users as the "more powerful, faster
: > OS". You're reaching, big time. :)
:
: Oh? How so? Windows NT was never marketed for home use. In fact
: literature on the MS website marketed it
