Dependency hell

[Warren Togami]

Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 05:43, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at welho.com> wrote:
> 
>>In the long run apt should probably run in it's own domain with suitable
>>restrictions on the methods etc... but this all raises the question:
>>How are 3rd party packages supposed to ship their own policy settings in
>>a sane manner?
> 
> 
> I've added rpm_exec_t entries for the apt programs in my tree.
> 
> If we are going to have apt as a recommended program or if we have some setup 
> with yum or up2date whereby one program gets the files and another does the 
> install (similar to the apt-get/dpkg) then we could write policy to 
> support/enforce that distinction.
> 
> However I expect apt to be phased out, so it's probably not worth doing.
> 

apt will not be phased out.

Warren