Re: apt .v. aptitude (was Re: how to remove exim4 without removing mysql-server?)
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:26:07 -0800, Marc Wilson <msw@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:14:54AM -0000, 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 Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what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)
>
> No, I made no such statement. I said that aptitude ignored the status file
> in favor of its own re-implementation of it. I should have been more
> clear.
>
> Aptitude *does* read the status file, and copy its flags to its own file.
> The problem is that it does it only when you use the ncurses interface.
> Try it... put a package on hold with the normal tools (dpkg, dselect), then
> try 'aptitude upgrade'. Aptitude won't recognize that the package is on
> hold.
I tried it with dselect, but the first thing dselect did was select a
bunch of packages I didn't want. Does dselect have yet another status
list? In any case, I had the same behaviour (about). Somebody should
patch this one day.
>
> What *dpkg* does is the standard. If aptitude doesn't honor it, it's
> broken. If aptitude is *inconsistent*, as it is between the command line
> and the ncurses interface, it's WORSE.
>
This is true, but if you only use aptitude it's a minor problem (eg.
you can probably not even set a package on hold without the curses
interface).
greets,
Wim
Reply to: