Re: apt and hamm
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
> > currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
> > a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
> > apt into hamm.
Remco Blaakmeer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> IMHO, the single most important issue for hamm is that it becomes stable.
> Adding new software only slows down that process. And apt wasn't meant to
> be in Debian 2.0 anyway.
I differ, becase...
> > [Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
> > upgrade from completely breaking an existing debian installation.]
> The autoup.sh script also does the job well, doesn't it?
Some of the time yes, some of the time no. The problem with autoup
is that it doesn't take into account whatever is currently broken
about an installation. apt seems to do a better job of making things
Now, even apt can't deal with everything, there's going to have to be
some documentation about how to resolve some of the conundrums that
can occur in broken installations, but that's a solvable problem.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org