Re: apt .v. aptitude (was Re: how to remove exim4 without removing mysql-server?)
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 11:26:07AM -0800, Marc Wilson 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 Marc is saying if you mix you'll end up with 2 out of date lists of what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.
>
> What *dpkg* does is the standard. If aptitude doesn't honor it, it's
> broken.
What dpkg does is broken. It has no business storing that stuff in the
status file.
Consider aptitude to be, errr, "ahead of its time".
dselect and apt-get are both dead-end tools whose development was
largely halted long ago. If you rely on them to define the "standard",
you're never going to get anywhere.
> If aptitude is *inconsistent*, as it is between the command line
> and the ncurses interface, it's WORSE.
The command-line is an after-thought in aptitude. It's not intended to
be used as the primary interface and is not as well supported.
The inconsistency is a known bug, and it'll be fixed some day. It's not
a high priority though, and certainly isn't something that should
prevent aptitude's use at all.
--
For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Reply to: