On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:17 +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: > On 28 Apr 2005, Steve Block wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:11:43AM -0700, mm wrote: > > >Is there any compelling reason to use `apt-get' over `aptitude', given > > >the latter's more robust feature set (installation tracking, for > > >example)? > > > > > >I've been using aptitude exclusively for about a year for installing > > >packages, yet still see a lot of new documentation with directives to > > >install/upgrade with apt-get. > > > > There's no real need to use apt-get over aptitude. They use the same > > package lists and underlying architecture. > > > > Of course I do everything with wajig. > > > > As a fairly recent convert, I'd endorse this recommendation of wajig. > Aptitude, which I used for about 2 years, worked pretty well for me much > of the time but occasionally it went wild and did all sorts of things it > shouldn't. Wajig has been absolutely reliable so far. Because wajig (which I just started using, and think is very good) is a wrapper around apt-get. I'm Yet Another who's seen aptitude go wacky and want to remove too many packages. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "There's no obfuscated Perl contest because it's pointless." Jeff Polk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part