on Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:05:44AM +0200, Florian Ernst (florian@uni-hd.de) wrote:
> Hello J.S.!
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:51:19AM +0530, J.S.Sahambi wrote:
> > I have been using apt and dselect for some time. Can any body tell me
> > about the advantages/disadvantages of dselect and aptitude? and which is
> > better?
>
> To dselect or aptitude, that is the question;
> Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
> The slings and arrows of outragous dselect
> where, alas, Sarge can barely meet Sid
> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
> And by learning aptitude end them.
>
>
> But seriously, both have their (dis)advantages, use them, feel them,
> decide yourself. Better is what you can make out of them.
aptitude is pretty much a replacement for both dselect (interactive) and
apt-get (command line). With near but not-quite drop-in replacement of
the latter. The strengths go beyond this to include logging of system
updates, allegedly, though I'm still not fully clear on how/where.
I found tonight that the difference between an 'apt-get dist-upgrade'
and an 'aptitude dist-upgrade' for an older system which I've been
attempting to pare down (former desktop, now mostly a DNS / remote
access server) was about 280 MiB.
The short answer, though, is that you'd want aptitude over dselect in
virtually all instances. Though apt-get is still useful. Look also at
synaptic and, um, the other stuff.
> Cheers,
> Flo - who was a dselect advocate for a long time and then switched to
> aptitude because of its ability to easily handle mutliple releases.
> I stayed there, and I don't regret it.
>
>
> PS: Sorry to Mr. 'Speare and to all poets for the butchering...
Oh brave new world, that has such features in't....
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Enough is as good as a feast.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature