On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 23:05 +1200, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:25:16PM -0500, 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. > > I remember readding something that they each use their own database. > So that mixing the two methods was not a good idea. > > Or was that dselect? Can someone confirm or deny? I'm not sure if it IS aptitude, but I'm relatively sure that it's NOT dselect. I used to use dselect exclusively (before I saw the light and started using wajig) and it would work on any changes that were set by apt-get and/or dpkg. i.e. I could mark packages for installation in one, and then execute the operation in another without a problem. -- Alex Malinovich Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY! Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part