Re: Apt-get suggestion, was (Re: kernel depends?)
esoR ocsirF <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 08:20:26AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 04:11:45PM +0100, Jan Martin Mathiassen wrote:
> > > dpkg -S as86 to find out what package it needed,
> > No you couldn't, because bin86 wasn't installed.
> > I used apt-cache search to find it myself.
> I have been wishing for an apt-get functionality for a while now but...
> Is it altogether unreasonable that
> apt-get install filename
> instead of
> apt-get install package
> should work? I would really enjoy having apt lookup the most appropriate
> package for any needed file or binary that I wish to install. If
> multiple packages offered the same utility or file then I would probably
> need to decide but not necessarily, a default selection would be ok also.
> For instance, if I wanted to compile something that requires some obscure
> library I would have to figure out what package that it is in then
> install that package. As opposed to just telling apt to install that
> library, this seems like unwanted work to me, but I suppose
> there might be some con to this, however I can't think of any.
One could add an entry to the sources.list of the following form:
deb-con ftp://ftp.debian.org woody
Which would then download
And apt-get what-package foo could then look in the Contents file for
the right packages.
Of cause any other tool apart from apt-get could do that as
well. Personally I have a alias that zgreps in my local mirror.