> No they're not unmet dependencies, they're versioning dependencies
So they're dependencies.
Are they met? That would work fine. If they're not met - then they're unmet dependencies.
> that conflict with the versioning dependencies of other packages
This is why packages are versioned - so that the correct one can be picked up. I have many versions of libraries on my machines - the app gets the right one by virtue of it asking for the right one. This system breaks, obviously, if you've --forced an installation despite not having the correct version of a dependency.
> or they're packages that share the same subset of files (love those)
A package clash such as that is inevitably caused by someone using --force on the package manager.
If you *really* want two packages to have files in the same area, you make one of the packages relocatable such that the problem goes away. This is part of the deal with package managers.
> or they're one of the hundred other problems package managers have
> because the world isn't perfect.
Again - anecdotal issues form someone who forces packages into a system against the advice of the package management system. This is hardly unexpected.
> please cease to prescribe your advice.
Ah. I see. You're allowed to make unsubstantiated allegations, but no-one is permitted to rebut your claims? I figured we'd get here eventually.
> just using it to claim your apparent superior system administration knowledge
I'm doing no such thing.
What I'm trying to point out is that you are incorrectly identifying the source of your problems.
> As I said we get along fine with what we do - and don't.
Your posts imply problems with package dependencies, having to --force packages into the system, having version management problems. I wouldn't describe that as "get[ting] along fine".