[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: aptitude vs. apt-get

Steve Lamb a écrit le 05/02/05 04:30 :

Eddy wrote:


Steve Lamb a écrit le 04/02/05 23:50 :
The OP said he didn't like aptitude's behaviour.
Why do *you* have a problem with that ? You must have one though because
I can't see why you would start PEBKACking him otherwise.



    Because he stated that it was for random reasons when the reasons are
clearly explained.  That is just pure FUD because he has some irrational
dislike for aptitude and is spreading it here.  Pardon me if I dislike
irrational FUD being spewed and respond accordingly.


I reread his message and I really can't agree.
He used the words "seemingly random" which to me doesn't mean that it is
 random but that it can be perceived as such.

I'm not playing on words here Steve. So often can we see (on this list
and elsewhere) people who start bashing programs they don't like,
sometimes in a manner that is insulting towards the people who made,
contributed or maintained it.  For once it wasn't the case.  Just
someone stating his "irrational" dislike for it ? I still can't see
what's wrong with that. Of course you have the right not to like that
but do you have to be insulting ? (Some will disagree with that but as
far as I am concerned "pebkac" is an insult.)




Seriously, I admit there probably is an explanation to the aptitude
behaviour.



    Yup, chances are installing one of those two packages causes a dependancy
cascade which updates others to the point where they are no longer needed and
automatically removed.



I haven't got a problem with that but I just don't see why I
should bother trying to understand aptitude when apt-get does the job I
want.



    That's fine.  That is quite different than saying something completely BS
about aptitude.



As for your assertion that "aptitude does tell you exactly why it is
removing packages", well it simply is not true. At least not always. And
when it does it's not always correct.
(Again aptitude's doc probably provides explanations but don't pretend
that those informations are provided by aptitude itself.)



    It is.



Example 1.




I start aptitude and type "g" to see what it plans to do.




It wants to remove vim as an "unused" package. As far as unused packages
go, I use this one everyday.  Well let's read further...  "It was
installed automatically".  Well that's a lie : I installed it on pupose
but I didn't do it with aptitude. I can accept this kind of behaviour
but I will certainly not consider the message displayed as correct.
That's PEBKAC. 

What is ? I'm just stating a fact.
Aptitude says vim is unused while I use it everyday.
Aptitude says vim was installed automatically while I installed it on
purpose. Therefore the information aptitude gives is wrong.
There is no argueing about that !

As I said before, I understand *why* aptitude gives it but that doesn't
change the fact that it is incorrect. We might say that by "unused"
aptitude means "was not installed by me and is not needed by any other
package" but I am sorry to tell you that acceptation of "unused" is not
in my dictionnary.


Simply mark it + and that goes away.  Not all that hard.
In fact you can get rid of it by hitting + on the "installed software".
Personally I do that then M on the libraries.


I never said I had a problem dealing with that situation. You pretended
that aptitude was self explanatory and I gave you an example showing it
is not.  That you and I know how to react has nothing to do with it.

Normally I would thank you for telling me what to do (even though I knew
it before but you couldn't know that). Unfortunately your pebkac gives a
condescending ring to it all. Maybe you didn't mean it; I'm sorry that's
how I resent it.



Example 2




It will remove libgnutls11-dev because it has 4 missing dependencies.
Well apt-get installing those show that they are installed with the
latest versions; apt-get install libgnutls11-dev tells the same.
Are you sure? 

Definitely.


What does aptitude say when you trace the dependacies back?
 You know, hit d, see what is missing, check to see what it has in its
database.  You /are/ aware that apt-get and aptitude *do not use the same
database*, right?


Well not really. I knew aptitude needed its own database to deal with
unused or orphaned packages for instance but I did not realise this
could have an influence on the fact that a package is installed or not.

But this proves my point again.
A package is installed or it is not.
Your providing a reason for aptitude not seeing it doesn't change the
fact that the info provided by aptitude is incorrect.


 Did you do an aptitude update first?



Example 3




It will install festival. Why ? It sure doesn't say and I really don't
need it. The same goes for a lot of other packages.



    aptitude installs recommends.


I *know* that. You said aptitude displayed informative messages.
In this case I just stated that it didn't display anything more then
"these packages will be installed".


 Hit r and it will tell you what is
dependant or recommending that package.  Alternatively hit the options and
turn off install recommends. 

Did you read the end of my previous message ?


For the record festival is recommended by
screader and education-music, do you have either of those installed?



I am not saying there is no reason to do it (and it is probably due to
the options regarding dependencies) but do not tell me that aptitude
gives the reason for its actions.



    r to see what is dependant or recommending a package isn't telling you?
There's 2 possibilities here.

a: You're ignorant of that command which means you haven't read the help
aptitude provides.  PEBKAC.


I have read the doc !


b: You're ignoring that command and how to use it.  PEBKAC.


You *are* ignoring the end of my previous message. Is it on purpose ?
I don't see any reason to keep argueing with you on thoses terms.
I will read with interest your reply to this if you think one is needed
but I won't reply further because
1) we all know these kind of correspondance tends to become pointless
2) I have the feeling what you read is different from what I have written
3) basically, we agree on the most important (see below) and disagree on
wether the messages displayed by aptitude are any good : this is not
important




Example 4




It wants to remove alsa, anacron and lots of other basic stuff and once
again does not provide any reason.



    Did you hit d to see what was broken to that point?  Where the listed as
automatically installed?  One or the other will tell you.  If you choose to
ignore the help and/or the output of said commands the problem is yours.

    For the record I have not read the docs on aptitude, only the help
provided with aptitude.  So don't you dare blather that aptitude doesn't tell
you.  It does.



Now this is different.
In your previous message you said "Since aptitude does tell you exactly
why it is removing packages if the user cannot take in that information
it is PEBKAC. "
Here you say that by reading the aptitude help one can understand.
It is not the same! I agree with you (even though I didn't test
aptitude's help menu but I read /usr/share/doc/aptitude/README).

Now for those who might still be reading this (how boring it must be !
I'm sorry.) let's get this clear : even though I do not like aptitude,
I'm not saying anything bad about it. I am glad it exists, providing
additionnal possibilities to what apt-get offers. There is even one I
wish I could have using apt-get : a log file.

I am not saying the examples I gave cannot be understood; I am not
saying they are representatives of what happens using aptitude. On the contrary, I think they are the sign of an unusually broken aptitude on my machine. 

I am convinced aptitude does what it does for good reasons and it can be
understood reading the doc.

I am just saying the messages displayed by aptitude in the lower part of
the UI are not as straigthforward as they seem and should sometimes be
read with caution. Nothing more !

--
Eddy
         "La notion de passoire est indépendante de la notion de trou."
		                                 Les Shadoks
Reply to: