Re: A Question About Aptitude
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 08:58:57AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> "Russell L. Harris" <rlharris@oplink.net> writes:
> > I think you need to take a closer look at synaptic; or perhaps you have
> > formed your opinion strictly on the basis of hearsay.
>
> No, I tried to use synaptic (I like bling as much as anyone), and gave
> up after a while.
>
> > Synaptic is aware of dependencies.
>
> I'm not talking about dependencies (of course every debian package
> manager is aware of those), I'm talking about aptitude's tracking of
> which packages are "automatically" installed, so it can later
> automatically remove them when they are not needed anymore.
>
> This is a feature which really should be part of the base apt
> libraries, but for whatever reason is not yet.
Another notable feature which makes aptitude a fun for people following
unstable (sid) is its handling of broken dependencies. This recent
feature is fun. (Besides, it can be set to install all recommended
packages too. That is good these days since we have plenty of disk
space.)
If you are in stable, maybe it does not matter though. I do not use
synaptics. Synaptics is certainly the niciest looking tool. But if you
have broken X installation, you are out of lack.
> > personally have used all the package managers. I recommend synaptic,
> > without reservation, for both tyro and guru.
>
> I'm sure you do.
But it s fair to say any tool has their merits and demerits. We just
need to pick one which fits ourselves. I use apt-get and aptitude since
not everything can be done with aptitude yet.
I may have been careless replacing almost all apt-get reference in
Debian reference with aptitude. The original poster may have been
confused with it.
Osamu
Reply to: