Re: Apt should be called "inapt" (rhymes with "inept")

["Joe Emenaker" <joe@emenaker.com>]

> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
> > and a couple of others. In other words, upon reboot, there was no
> > network connectivity and no way to GET network connectivity without
> > bringing in netbase and it's dependencies via floppy disk.
>
> So uh, why did you let it?

I presume this would have been your response if I had reported that 'vi' had
deleted my kernel images, too? :)

Why did I "let" it?!?! Because I was never asked. I asked apt to "install"
and I ended up without some critical packages.

If I had said something like "remove" or "purge", I'd expect to have some
packages disappear without any further interaction on my part. However, when
the command from the user is *obviously* asking for *addition* of software,
if it requires the removal of anything, the user should be notified and be
given the option to cancel.

Just today, I installed a couple of MS-Windows programs one some machines
and the first thing they did was warn me that the previous versions needed
to be removed and I was asked if that was okay.

It seems so basic. When you say "apt-get install ..." the "plan" is clearly
the addition of software to the system. Removal is patently "not part of the
plan", unless explicitly acknowledged by the user.

- Joe