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

Re: switching from apt-get to aptitude

Grant Thomas wrote:
> > For example, a few days ago I decided to take a look at KDE (I am a long
> > time IceWM user). I just did 'aptitude install kde' and had almost
> > several hundred MB worth of k* applications. Exactly what I wanted and,
> > so far, exactly what apt-get would have done. But it was just an
> > experiment and I wanted to get rid of KDE again. Aptitude allowed me to
> > just 'aptitude purge kde' again and it removed *every* package kde
> > depended on. If I had used apt-get to install and remove kde, apt-get
> Even X?

Of course not! But you are right, I should have made myself more clear:
aptitude removed every package kde depended upon *that were not yet
installed* when I requested installation of kde.

Question for you (anyone) then:
If you install kde through aptitude, an aptitude marks Xorg as a
dependency, and then install gnome a couple of days later, would
removing kde also remove Xorg, or would it see it as a current
dependency for gnome and leave it?

Once I installed a minimal Etch system, then used apt or aptitude to install Gnome ("gnome-desktop-environment" package). When I tried to start X, it failed. Why? Because I didn't install X!

I don't think Xorg is a dependency of Gnome, KDE, or as far as I know, any other DE or WM. You have to explicitly install it. So using aptitude to remove any DE/WM won't remove Xorg.

Doing "aptitude show kde" in Sid shows that the "x-window-system-core" package is a suggests, not a recommends or a depends.

Also, in Sid, the new X server metapackage "xorg" does not install any WM, not even twm. The package description states "It should be noted that a package providing x-window-manager should also be installed to ensure a comfortable X experience."

Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson

Reply to: