Re: Lying to dpkg?
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Phoenix Amon wrote:
> > 2. RTFM; it's right there. "man dpkg" (if you've installed man-db).
> Sometimes TFM doesn't give quite enough info if you don't already know
> what you're looking for. In a lot of cases TFM serves you well if you
> know what you're doing and need to jog your memory, but not so well as
> a learning tool.
I learned how to use dpkg from reading the man page. The thing is, you
did know that for which you were looking, else I wouldn't have been able
to find the answer. Before you asked, I didn't know how to do it (because
I never wanted to).
> All I'm saying is that to a newbie, package management as it's
> currently implemented tends to feel restrictive. It would seem that
> those more knowledgable often agree, as the debates about whether to
> make updates to stable fly fast and free.
I think it's just restrictive enough. At the basic level, it prevents
newbies from doing harm to their own systems. However, there exist
directives which will allow you to do whatever you want with it, moving
from being restricted to being given a warning that you could seriously
screw yourself.
Given the proper syntax, dpkg allows you to do things it would not advise,
basically reverting to, "I wouldn't do that if I were you, but it's your
computer. You're on your own, pal."
> Like you said, I could just avoid using it entirely... but I like it.
> It's a big time saver. I'd just like to see it get a bit more
> flexible. Finding ways to work around the system seems to be the topic
> of a lot of posts around here, and it shouldn't have to be.
Lots of easy questions are posted to lists like this because people don't
bother to read the most obvious documentation. That doesn't mean that the
system needs to be changed. Dpkg is flexible, but you need to know how to
use it; the information you need is already on your system.
"UNIX is user-friendly. It's just really selective about who it befriends."
--
Hecubus
Reply to: