Re: aptitude (priority important) depends on libboost-iostreams (priority optional)
"Steve M. Robbins" <steve@sumost.ca> writes:
> I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
> place "aptitude" in that category, either.
aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
it had the best dependency resolver for handling the dist-upgrade case.
For so long as that's true, it should be priority: important, which means
that by definition the things that it requires are also priority:
important or higher.
If apt-get is now strong enough that we can recommend it for upgrades
without qualms, then aptitude is another alternative package manager and
standard may be fine. Is that now the case?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: