Re: apt .v. aptitude (was Re: how to remove exim4 without removing mysql-server?)
--- linux@networkingnewsletter.org.uk wrote:
[ Another top-poster. Don't do it, please ]
> So, is the consensus to stick with 'apt'? Or at least to choose one and
> stick with that and not to mix apt and aptitude (it sounds to me as
> though
> Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what
> has/hasn't been inst-ed)
In theory, what was meant to happen, was that apt and aptitude could work
together, interchangeably to support how each other works. This of course
never happened, with the aptitude development team deciding that it would
be a good idea to do things Their Way(tm).
I can see no advantages to using aptitude over apt-get. If you think it is
for the removal of packages, then you're mistaken -- debfoster is far
"better" at it, IMO. If you also think it is because aptitude is better
because it has a nice ncurses interface, then you are probably using it
wrong. :) I also find the fact that aptitude's difference on the CL to the
ncurses interface to be worrying at best.
I'm sticking with apt-get. At least until the bugs for aptitude are
reduced...
-- Thomas Adam
=====
"The Linux Weekend Mechanic" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"TAG Editor" -- http://linuxgazette.net
"<shrug> We'll just save up your sins, Thomas, and punish
you for all of them at once when you get better. The
experience will probably kill you. :)"
-- Benjamin A. Okopnik (Linux Gazette Technical Editor)
___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Reply to: