Re: apt .v. aptitude (was Re: how to remove exim4 without removing mysql-server?)
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:14:54 -0000 (GMT),
linux@networkingnewsletter.org.uk <linux@networkingnewsletter.org.uk>
wrote:
> 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 Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what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)
Yeah I'd use only apt or only aptitude. Mixing the two is indead not
handy. Though if you do mix them I expect the problems will usually
appear in aptitude and not in apt (except for all the cruft that gets
installed and never removed). About the "status" file thing, both apps
do know what is installed and not installed etc (eg. the real
"status"), but it can be that aptitude will try to remove some
packages you installed with apt and vice-versa. At least that's how I
understand it.
greets,
Wim
P.S.: plz don't toppost. I think at least on technical mailing lists
people prefer to read things chronologically.
>
> Cheers, Michael
>
> >> > Aptitude shouldn't be used until its fundamental breakages are
> >> resolved.
> >
> > It ignores the status file in favor of its own re-implementation of it.
> > Its behavior regarding dependency resolution is different depending on
> > whether you're using it from the command line or the ncurses interface.
> > It's claimed that aptitude is a drop-in replacement for apt-get, except
> > that aptitude by default installs Recommends/Suggests, while apt-get only
> > tells you about them.
> >
Reply to: