Re: dselect vs. apt-get
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 06:37:54PM -0700, Eric G. Miller wrote:
> dselect will generally want to install "Recommends" while apt-get won't.
True.
> I don't know the internals about when things are called. Both seem to
> use their own mechanism for initial dependency resolution and then dpkg
> will later insure that the dependencies are met when it does its dirty
> work...
Well, dselect typically uses the apt back-end as its access method. I
believe the primary difference is that dselect maintains its own
package database which is based on the one built by apt.
Overall, dselect seems to be more robust at handling package
dependency conflicts, and is more "expressive" :). For example, it
won't just mysteriously hold packages back; it'll tell you exactly
what's going on.
If you check back in the archives a month or two back, you'll find
plenty of posts by Joost that will explain this stuff much better than
I can.
> Also, if you track woody or sid, you probably want to use "dist-upgrade"
> rather than "upgrade" for apt-get. The first will install dependencies
> that aren't already installed and remove conflicting packages, whereas
> the second will only update installed packages (usually not sufficient
> for tracking an unstable branch). I usually use the "-du" options to an
> "apt-get dist-upgrade" so I get a clear report of what it intends to do
> and that the installation doesn't happen 'til I've got all the packages.
I find dselect does a better job for this.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
Reply to: