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

Re: packages fetching tools

On Tuesday 27 July 2004 05:53, Nate Duehr wrote:

> > I'm sorry ... I've used dselect.  I still have bad dreams about the
> > hours I spent lost wandering round in there (not to mention in its
> > so-called help system).  IMHO it's user interface exemplifies the
> > phrase "as user friendly as a cornered rat".  I can't imagine what the
> > designers were thinking of when they dreamed it up.
> Gosh, I never thought "/<packagename>" to search and jump right to it,
> "+", <ENTER> was so difficult.  Maybe a second <ENTER> to accept any
> dependencies.

I have to admit, that while this may not be complicated, I personally don't 
LIKE dselect. And this is not something for someone to say is 'wrong', and 
that I should use it.  For me, OSS is about choice, and this is an example of 

> There are actually dependency issues that apt-get CANNOT resolve that
> dselect can.  Specifically when a package is added to the archives and
> a new dependency is created, apt-get chokes on it saying that it will
> hold-back the old packages, whereas dselect will show the problem and
> allow you to accept the "fix" (adding another package) with a simple
> <ENTER> if you agree.

Then, this is a bug or missing feature in apt-get.  And I thought apt-get 
dist-upgrade resolved this, but anyways, either way, if this doesn't work 
with apt, it means apt should be fixed, not that dselect should be forced on 
people who don't like it.

> > If apt hadn't existed, I might even have been forced to give up using
> > Debian because of the thought of having to use dselect for package
> > management.
> Methinks you doth protest too much.  ;-)

I feel the same as the first poster, frankly. I don't like any curses or CUI 
based package managers. I want a CLI based one, and apt-get does the job very 
nicely, at least for me.


Version: 3.12
GCS d- s-: a-- C++ UL++++ P L+++ E--- W++ N+ o+ K- w---
O M V- PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP t 5- X+ R- tv+ b+ DI++ D+
G+ e++ h--- r++ y++

Reply to: