Re: [Galeon-user] Mozilla 1.0.0 rpms mess

[Christian R. <me...@me...>]

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Ian D. Stewart wrote:
> > Or, if you are discussing dependencies and versioning in general:
> > a) There is a reason why software has specific dependencies
> > b) Thus, packages of said software usually have these dependencies too
> > c) That means that rpm or deb or whatever package format is used is
> > irrelevant (it would be broken not to have the dependencies)
> > d) Package manager frontend, like apt, is even more irrelevant to
> > support for dependencies, it's the package format that needs to have
> > support for this (hint: both rpm and deb do). Thus I don't understand
> > why apt came into the discussion
>
> I'm not familiar with all the intricacies of either RPM or .deb, but I
> do know from personal experience using both Debian and RPM-based
> distributions that debian handles dependency issues far more gracefully.

That, again, depends on the frontend used, not on the package format! apt
is a frontend, deb and rpm are package formats and libraries (backends).
Could we please compare apples to apples? And not on this list; this whole
thread about apt is not only terribly confused (since it has nothing to do
with apt) and based on random theories but also terribly offtopic for
galeon-user.


Christian