Re: empty status
On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 05:50:12PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> > Then it seems ever more peculiar that apt should abort when the file
> > is missing. Why should it care about the status file when it is
> > invoked to download packages?
>
> Because apt is not a package downloader. It is a system upgrader/installer.
>
> When you invoke -d, apt just skips the installation steps. However, it still
> takes the system's state into account to figure out what it needs to install.
Which is empty.
> > What I'm saying is that there are some assumptions coded into apt and
> > dpkg that make them difficult to use in ways that are useful, but not
> > as originally intended. What is the harm in making them more
> > flexible?
>
> You are assuming apt can download packages. It can't. It installs and
> upgrade packages.
This doesn't make sense. It does download packages. It is
downloading packages.
What I'm reading is that you are uninterested in the conversation.
Please, don't feel obliged to participate.
Reply to: