[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt / aptitude question

David Guntner <davidg@akaMail.net> writes:

> Andreas Rönnquist grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
>>[I wrote]:
>>> It will spit back a list of all packages that provide that filename or
>>> any part of it.  It's treated like a substring - for example if I type
>>> "urpmf kross" it will list the package that provides /usr/bin/kross,
>>> and will then go on to show other packages that have that string in
>>> it like /usr/lib64/libkokross.so.7 and so on.  This can be controlled
>>> by entering something like "urpmf /usr/bin/kcross", though other
>>> things in /usr/bin that start with "kcross" will also show up.
>>> I haven't figured or found out yet how to get that kind of search
>>> functionality within Debian.  So as above, is there a way to do this,
>>> and if so, how?
>> And in addition to Neals answer, there is also apt-file that can be
>> used like this:
>> apt-file search <something>
>> apt-file list <package>
>> - before doing apt-file search, you should run apt-file update.
>> See the manpage for more info.
> Thanks to both you and Neal for the replies.  Interesting to see the
> multiple ways of getting the same information. :-)

They are slightly different.

The dpkg way will only work for installed packages.  apt-file will work
for packages whether they are installed or not (the apt-file update
downloads everything it needs).

> In my Google searching, I had come upon a fairly old forum posting
> referencing apt-file, but when I tried typing that command in, I got a
> "not found" - turns out that the program wasn't installed by default
> when I installed Debian.  I came to the wrong conclusion that it was
> part of the "apt" system and must have been removed somewhere along the
> way from the time of the posting.  Guess that's what I get for not
> bothering to do an "aptitude search" for it to see if it was a separate
> package.  Duh. :-)
> I've installed it and tested it, and it's working exactly the way I
> want, so thanks again!
>                 --Dave


Reply to: