Re: mixing aptitude and synaptic
On Monday 22 May 2006 17:39, Chris Lale wrote this for perusal by us all:
>---> Black Dew wrote:
>--->
>---> > kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:
>---> >
>---> >> Is it OK to mix aptitude and synaptic? I know that it is not good to
>---> >> mix apt-get and aptitude. But what about using synaptic sometimes
> and ---> >> aptitude sometimes? any suggestions?
>---> >>
>---> >> Please CC me on the replies as I am not subscribe to d-u.
>---> >
>---> >
>---> > Both synaptic and aptitude are just front ends to apt, it shouldn't
> be ---> > a problem to use any combination of them
>---> >
>---> >
>---> I don't think that this is true. Aptitude is not a front end for
>---> apt-get. That said, I use both interchangeably with no problems.
>--->
>---> There is one snag. Aptitude keeps a note of packages that have been
>---> installed manually (as opposed to being installed automatically as
>---> dependencies). The result is that it assumes that any packages
> installed ---> using Synaptic were not manually installed. This means that
> Aptitude ---> sometimes wants to remove a number of your packages because
> it assumes ---> that they are no longer needed. The solution (thanks to
> Magnus Therning ---> in a previous post) is to run
>--->
>---> # aptitude unmarkauto --schedule-only '~i'
>--->
>---> before running Aptitude commands.
>--->
>---> Hth,
>---> Chris.
I use apt-get and synaptic and find no problem whatsoever. But it will work as
it seems aptitude does, if I want to mark smart updates. It will then attempt
to remove programs to upgrade others. If that is not invoked, then all runs
as it should.
Charlie
--
Registered Linux User:- 329524
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Religion is not to go to God by forsaking the world but to find Him in it. Our
faith is to believe in our essential oneness with Him. "God is in us and we
in Him" must be made the most fundamental faith of all religions.
---------------------- SOEN SHAKU
***********************************************
Brilliant Debian Sarge 3.1
___________________________________________________________
Reply to: