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

[mike <mikpolniak@adelphia.net>]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:13:21 -0700, Joe Emenaker said:

> > 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
        
	Your experience is the reason i always do apt-get -fus
install. So i always know before time if i want to proceed with
the install. 

-- 
gEEk||dOOd^Deb+ian&&XFce$everything goes<Pronto>(-_-)